Talk:Bible/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Citations[edit]

What information do we need to cite for? As far I know, it is all true, I haven't reviewed the grammar and spelling however. Complex-Algorithm-Interval 00:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is precisely when something is all true that it is easy to provide citations. I think the citations requested here fall into two categoories. In some cases, the article claims a group of people say something (some people call the bible the word of God, some scholars make a claim about a poarticular version of the text). These claims raise the question, whi? A citation answers the question by making clear who makes these claims. In other instances where there is a general consensus or very widely shared view, a citation is a resource for readers who want to learn more 9about the bible, history, or religion). To sum up: providing citations is another way to make this encyclopedia a useful education resource, and if everything is true finding good citations whould be easy to do. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Section 7.2 Canonization of the Old Testament and New Testament has the paragraph: "Thus, the Protestant Old Testament of today has a 39-book canon—the number varies from that of the books in the Tanakh (though not in content) because of a different method of division—while the Roman Catholic Church recognizes 46 books as part of the canonical Old Testament. The term "Hebrew Scriptures" is only synonymous with the Protestant Old Testament, not the Catholic, which contains the Hebrew Scriptures and additional texts. Both Catholics and Protestants have the same 27-book New Testament Canon.[citation needed] Canonicity, which involves the discernment of which texts are divinely inspired, is distinct from questions of human authorship and the formation of the books of the Bible.[citation needed]" Can somebody explain why the "citation needed" flags are there. Both statements are glaringly obvious facts. (And can be seen as conclusions by reading the rest of the article, and the related article on canonicity, and biblical canon.)jonathon 19:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jonathon, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Common knowledge. What's common to some (e.g. that Protestants and Catholics have the same Old testament canon) is not necessarily obvious to others - especially those who are not Christian. We cite things so that Wikipedia articles are credible to all readers, not just those from a particular background. Hope that helps. Egfrank 10:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first of those citation requests is for Catholics and Protestants have the same 27 book New Testament. To say that there are 27 books in the NT is not controversial, is not an untested fact, is not technical knowledge, is not indirect knowledge. Do we really need a cite to The Articles of Religion, etc. there? The Peshitta had 22 books in the NT, but that issue was resolved centuries ago. Martin Luther resolved the issue of Epistle for the Laodocians for German Catholics. The Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church recognizes 28 books, but has not included 3 Corinthians in their Bible in decades.(It was included because of tradition, not formal appointment.) The Canon of 81 (Broader Canon) hasn't been printed in over a century --- besides which nobody can define what it includes, and what it excludes. The Canon of 81 (Narrower Canon) includes the same 27 books as Protestant Christianity, Celtic Christiantiy, Orthodox Christianity, Protestant Christianity, Restoration Movement Christianity, etc. IOW, you have to wander extremely far into byways of theological history to find anybody who claims that there are not 27 books in the NT. (Ecclesia Gnostica, amongst other Gnostic Groups, doesn't have an official canon.)jonathon 17:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The second of those citation requests is for which involves the discernment of which texts are divinely inspired, is distinct from questions of human authorship and the formation of the books of the Bible. which is discussed elsewhere in both this article, and the article on Biblical Canonicity. I'll wikify it, to clarify that it is discussed elsewhere.jonathon 17:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bible as fiction[edit]

Many people consider the Bible (or large parts of it) to be a fictional creation and I think their viewpoint should be expressed here, at least within the Modern developments section - with a few supporting links. Whether or not Christians regard this as true, I believe that it is a legitimate viewpoint shared by many people and deserves at least a passing mention there if nothing else. --Philip Corner 22:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the Bible#Textual criticism section. --Shirahadasha 03:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Book of Hebrews[edit]

I see that the letter to the Hebrews is currently listed as a Pauline Epistle. This makes sense because some Christians believe that Hebrews was written by St. Paul. However, today many Christians believe that Hebrews was written by someone else, such as Barnabas or Apollos, because of the different theological emphases and the manners of writing. In The NIV Study Bible from Zondervan, it states "Though for some 1,200 years (from c. A.D. 400 to 1600) the book [Hebrews] was commonly called 'The Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews,' there was no agreement in the earliest centuries regarding its authorship. Since the Reformation it has been widely recognized that Paul could not have been the writer." (page 1856) (By the way, please DO NOT incorporate the aforementioned quote into Wikipedia without proper citation because it is no doubt copywritten by Zondervan.) I realize that this can hardly be seen as NPOV because it is written from a Protestant point of view. However, I just wanted to bring this issue up. I don't see it as a big deal, but I think it's interesting that we don't know the author of this book in the Bible, or at least there is some uncertainty. Of course, lacking clear authorship does nothing to diminish the validity of the epistle's message. WilliamJenkins09 17:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV does not mean an absense of views, it means providing multiple views and properly identifying them. As long as you can provide an appropriate source and clearly identify the view, add it in! (as long as it is not your point of view, and is a notale view held by more than a fringe group of people. identify the people properly - not just Protestant versus Catholic, but lay people, clergy, theologians, Bible scholars etc) Slrubenstein | Talk 18:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article[edit]

The article is far too long. If you would write some other article this long it would be marked to be shortened. Thus the neutrality of this article should be nominated. Skele 13:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Request for Administrator Assistance[edit]

Dear Administrators, To avoid controversy, several people requested refinement of this article by using a disambiguation page to link to articles for each of the bibles in this world. Without losing any content, this article was split into separate articles for the various bibles, using the Bible (disambiguation) page that already (redundantly) existed. User Shirahadasha‎, without discussion, reverted this refinement multiple times. The only explanation that I can give for Shirahadasha‎ reversions is that the first half of the current article is about the Tanakh or Jewish Bible, and, from his profile, Judaism is his faith. Many Christians disagree with the content of this article and should be allowed to edit an article about the Christian Bible that is on fully equal footing with the Tanakh or Jewish Bible. Preventing a disambiguation page for the Bibles of various faiths is courting endless controversy and highly redundant edits, as well as conflicting with Wikipedia's policy of clarity: one-article one-topic and with its policy of using a neutral point of view. There are many documents that can be given the name of Bible, so it is necessary, for the sake of NPOV, to have a disambiguation page, rather than giving preference to the "holy books" of any particular religions. Please consider allowing my high-quality edits with the disambiguation page, fully conforming to Wikipedia's standards, with their potential for decreasing controversy. Users who would like to contribute knowledge can edit the article for the Bible of their interest rather than editing one overly-long, sprawling, biased, central article that unsuccessfully, and inevitably unfairly, discusses the scriptures of select religions. Sincerely, Luqman Skye 04:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page was protected by User:Shirahadasha based on a pattern of behavior and not on the merits or dismerits of User:Luqmanskye's changes. His behavior - blanking blanking both this talk page (2x) and all comments placed on his own talk page (within minutes of them being posted), gave the appearance of trying to suppress discussion. That may not have been his intent, of course, but in any case the actions were not conducive to the fundamentally cooperative nature of wikipedia editing. Egfrank 05:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC) signature added by LuqmanSkye 08:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC) based on edit history.[reply]
I redirected this talk page to the talk page for Bible (disambiguation) since this page had become a redirect. No comments were deleted. It seems possible that User:Shirahadasha contacted you, possibly his best friend among administrators, to attempt to justify his abuse of administrative privileges. His behavior of reverting my high-quality edits, without discussion, is an abuse of his privileges. User:Luqmanskye 06:13, 12 October 2007
Egfrank, ordinarily I would be shocked by your biased and unjust attempt to explain away the abuse of privileges by Shirahadasha. However, I see that you are also a member of Wikipedia:Judaism, studying Judaic studies, and from Israel, so I am not at all surprised at this bias. I would expect that Shirahadasha contacted you to help him avoid discipline for his abuses. You should keep in mind that it is not correct to block a fair article on the Christian Bible, as Shirahadasha has attempted to do with his immediate administrative reversions of all edits that present a fair treatment. It is wrong for both of you to be expressing your bias on Wikipedia, preventing an objective article on the Christian Bible. You already have one on the Jewish Bible, Tanakh, as well as several other articles such as Torah and Hebrew Bible. This bias is wrong and needs to be addressed by impartial mediators, i.e. those who are not believers in either Judaism or Christianity. Ideally we should agree to a compromise where there are articles for your topics as well as articles for Christian topics. I am surprised that the two of you would abuse your power against all requests for this division to maintain a sprawling and biased redundant article while attempting to prevent a clear article on the Christian Bible from being placed on equal footing. Luqman Skye 09:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Luqmanskye, you are new to Wikipedia and so perhaps do not understand how it works. Let me assume for the moment you are a member of a Christian faith community - suppose you wish to build a new building or worship space - do you User:Luqmanskye go out and singlehandedly declare that the best thing, the fairest thing to do is hire architect X and forthwith sign a contract with him on behalf of the entire community? No, there is a process and in the end the board or the congregation votes. Or if you are Quaker you hold a meeting and wait for unanimity to evolve. Every community has its process - even Wikipedia. Egfrank 10:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I also note that within minutes of User:Shirahadasha's original reversion another user reinserted Lukmansky pre-redirect changes. Lukmanskye's reinstated changes placed the Christian canon before the Jewish canon, I doubt the user was motivated by POV. All the same that second user expressed concern about the lack of discussion in the edit notes. Egfrank 05:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC) signature added by Luqmanskye 08:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC) based on edit history.[reply]


Why is the Christian canon listed after the Jewish canon? Wikipedians are supposed to follow an NPOV policy of alphabetical order in listing. By reverting my edits, you are violating that policy. User:Luqmanskye 06:13, 12 October 2007 -
As for the merits or dismerits, I'm sure there are many users that would be delighted to engage in a discussion of the best way to structure this material and I invite him to start a section for that purpose. Egfrank 05:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please let us discuss. For the discussion to be active and fair, the discussion needs to be in a prominent position. Transferring my comments to the bottom of this page does not encourage discussion. Since the misuse of privileges by Shirahadasha in reverting all of my high-quality work to this sprawling page and his locking of the page, shows that he will fight for his personal bias against restructuring, even to the point of violating policies, I find it difficult to believe that any amount of discussion will include him in a consensus to do the unbiased thing. The evidence of his bias for his religion of Judaism is very clear by his actions; we need an impartial mediator. At the request of many users on this page, it is important to allow separate articles for the various bibles, with each article on an equal footing. To supress the creation of new articles and to prevent the refinement of each bible to have its own article is a fundamental violation of the principles on which Wikipedia was based. Luqman Skye 06:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest proceeding with the merits. Complaints about administrator actions can be made at WP:ANI and any editor is free to do so. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to say thank you to both Luqmanskye and Shirahadasha.
Luq, your excellent questions are stimulating discussions that clarify very important points. Welcome to Wiki and keep doing what you're doing. We should probably be more welcoming. Your challenges are just the ones an intelligent contributor would ask, and it's the responsibility of "old-hands" to introduce you around to the team and the written resources.
Shir, 12 out of 10 for giving the "complaints" line for users who need to resolve an issue with an admin. I once had such an issue and the admin gave me a useless location. Way to go, and more power to you! ;) Alastair Haines 18:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}}

  •  Not done I see no request for an edit to this protected page that isn't continuing the conflict that started page protection. Please build consensus for the changes and once everyone is getting along, you can request that the page be protected at WP:RPP. The editprotected template is for non-controversial edits that do not relate to the conflict which caused protection. -Andrew c [talk] 14:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refining article with a disambiguation page for the various bibles[edit]

Proposal to disambiguate articles on various bibles[edit]

My restructuring, which was not originally my idea but the idea of many editors on this discussion page, created an article for the Christian Bible to allow for the distinctly Christian translations and exegesis that have comprised one of the most influential documents in history. Tanakh, the Jewish Bible, has its own article already. We currently have a redundant redirect page Bible (disambiguation) that redirects to Tanakh and should redirect also to Christian Bible and Hebrew Bible. Hebrew Bible by definition includes those portions of the Tanakh that are shared in common by the Christian and Jewish religions, with some kind of translation and interpretation that would appease both. It already has its own article. The information on this page is redundant and presented in a distinctly biased manner with a proper treatment of the Christian Bible not appearing until the second half. There should be no bias at all, ideally by the use of separate articles, but certainly the document that has the greater number of adherents should not be explained so poorly and in the less-prominent position. LuqmanSkye 06:24, 12 October 2007 -

Luqmanskye (talk · contribs) has requested that we restructure the article by splitting its contents into Hebrew Bible and Christian Bible, and turn the Bible article into a redirect to Bible (disambiguation). Best, --Shirahadasha 05:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was not exactly my suggestion. See my explanation above. --LuqmanSkye 06:24, 12 October 2007-
"Hebrew Bible by definition includes those portions of the Tanakh that are shared in common by the Christian and Jewish religions" - this may be how Christians see it, bu tit is not how Jews see it. The Hebrew bible is not the Old Testament and the includion of books in the HB does not have anything to do with the wishes of Christians. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"To avoid controversy, several people requested refinement of this article by using a disambiguation page to link to articles for each of the bibles in this world." Several people? Who? I do nto see it. In any event, a disambiguation "to avoid controversy" is called a POV fork and is forbidden at Wikipedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the books of the so-called Christian Bible appear after the books of the so-called Jewish Bible in the majority of the Bibles published by Christians? On that basis, I really can't see the objection to placing oontent on the Christian Bible after content on the Jewish Bible in the article. And while, in time, I can and do see that perhaps, somewhere down the road, there may be enough content to call for a separate article on the Christian Bible, including info on all the books accepted as part of it by all the Christian sects, I honestly cannot see that there would be much need for a separate article on what the Christians describe as the Jewish Bible. The extant Tanakh article seems to already do that. John Carter 15:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be two proposals above: (a) convert Bible to a disambiguation page (b) have an article dedicated to specifically Christian aspects of the bible. I'd like to respond to them separately:

Converting bible to a disambiguation page. Although I feel this article can be improved, I don't think a disambiguation page is the solution:

  • there is a shared meta framework to biblical studies that is shared by almost all academic and religious traditions. Readers need to know about this and the only appropriate place to put this material is an article titled "Bible". I haven't yet found any place where this framework is explicitly stated. I'm sure that makes it harder for readers to negotiate their way around the massive number of articles related to the bible.
  • roughly speaking this framework consists of three questions:
    1. canon: which books are included in the bible?
    2. text: what is the authorized text of each book of the bible?
    3. interpretation: how is the authorized text understood?
  • Although the Jewish, Christian, and academic biblical studies traditions have different answers to these questions, their answers are interrelated. It is especially difficult to discuss this interrelationship if bible is nothing more than a disambiguation page. For example:
    1. canon: the Christian canon developed out of the Jewish canon. Isaiah is part of the Christian canon because Jesus quoted it and recognized it as the word of God. But Jesus was a Jew and developed his notions of what counted as God's word from his fellow Jews. Furthermore, there general consensus in the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican communion, and most mainline Protestant denominations that Jewish canon inspired the selection of books that Christian's call the Old Testament. Christianity didn't just invent the idea of including Genesis, Exodus, ... Kings, Chronicles, .... Isaiah, Ezekiel, etc. out of thin air. This is supported by ample textual evidence in early church documents.
    2. text: there is a long list of core manuscripts which have influenced biblical translation, scholarship, and interpretation in both Judaism and Christianity. These lists have significant overlap. Furthermore the interaction between Jewish and Christian scholars in secular academic settings has lead to shifts in the way each community values and prioritizes manuscripts.
    3. interpretation: both the Roman Catholic/Anglican traditional approach to reading (literal-allegorical-christological) and the Pardes approach of Judaism have parallel (and some would argue origins) in Greek and Roman literary theories. In the modern era, certain parts of both Jewish and Christian traditions have made a concerned effort to integrate secular academic interpretation of the bible with traditional approaches. In doing so they have often met similar sorts of resistance in their respective faith communities.

Article on Christian bible. I definitely think there might be some merit to this idea, although I think it needs to be carefully handled. The organization of articles on the bible is currently a mess. Answers covering the Jewish answers to the (canon, text, interpretation) are scattered among a number of articles: Bible, Hebrew bible, Tanakh, Biblical canon, Biblical exegesis, Drash, Pardes, and probably quite a few others I haven't found yet. There is no one article one can go to that gives the full picture of the development of the Jewish canon or if there is it isn't clear which of the article available is the "main" one: is it Bible? Biblical canon? Hebrew bible? Tanakh? I don't think it would benefit anyone to repeat the mess on the Christian side.

On the other hand, Christianity does have some special answers for each of the three questions (canon, text, interpretation) and those answers affect both the old and new testament. For example, the Church fathers believed that Christ had been since the beginning of time and would look for hints and allusions to Christ throughout the Hebrew bible. There is a lot of scholarly material available on this interpretive tradition, enough to merit an entire article. I'm sure if we put our heads together we could find many more examples. Egfrank 15:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC) Egfrank 15:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From my reading Egfrank is accurately reporting what the literature says. I disagree about the usefulness of a Christian Bible article (at this stage, but I'm open). On other points I broadly agree, some are particularly nicely phrased insights. My own comments are in the section below. Alastair Haines 17:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to an extent with Egfrank, but also agree with Alastair Haines. We have Old Testament and we have New Testament. And for Catholics/Orthodox, we have Deuterocanonical books. We don't need an article which summarizes these articles and nothing else. What we need is a top tier article that summarizes these articles, plus the Jewish articles, plus the history/canonization articles plus the scholarly views... and last time I looked, that's exactly what this article is. That is the heart of NPOV. Providing multiple POVs on a single topic (and Egfrank makes a good case why we should consider these multiple POVs together). If we split off the POVs, then we have POV forks. I strongly disagree with replacing this article with a disambiguation page, and believe it does a good job of summarizing the plethora of spin out articles on this topic. I also believe that we do not need a "Christian Bible" article because it would be redundant. We'd have the top tier Bible article which summarizes Old Testament and New Testament. Then we'd have a Christian Bible article, but I'm not clear on what it's purpose would be. Would it summarize Old Testament and New Testament again? Is there actually enough details that are too specific to go here at Bible but for whatever reason couldn't be included at either Old Testament or New Testament? (Finally, I'm going to agree with Slrubenstein that I cannot find the "several people" who requested the disambig page)-Andrew c [talk] 19:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
a) "Christian Bible" covers roughly ten different sets of books that are considered to be canonical:
* The Protestant Christian Bible consists of 39 OT + 27 NT, that is common to (most) of those sets;
* The Peshitta has 22 Canonical NT books;
* Catholic Christianity adds 8 Duetercanonical books, and Dueterocanonical material to Esther (Greek Esther) and Daniel (Song of the Three Young Men, The Story of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon.);
* Lutheran Christianity adds 11 Apocryphal books;
* Anglican Christianity adds 14 Apocryphal books;
* Orthodox Christianity adds 17 Canonical books. (Psalm 151, Greek Esther, Song of the Three Young Men, The Story of Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon are incorporated into "standard" OT books.);
* Other branches of Orthodox Christianity add a different number of Protocanonical books;
* Armenian Apostolic Orthodox adds one Canonical book to the New Testament;
* The Ethiopiac Canon of 81 (Broader Canon);
* The Ethiopiac Canon of 81 (Narrower Canon);
* The content of the books changes, according to the Canon being examined. ("Prayer of Manassas" is part of "2 Chronicles", for "The Canon of 81".);
b) To avoid the endless edit war, have a Bible (Disambiguation Page), listing Bible (Name of Canon), as well as Bible (whatever is left to discuss that isn't about a specific Canon.) The different canons evolved differently. They are also understood differently. [Yes, this implies a major rewrite of a number of related articles on Wikipeidia. It also means not having to debate whether or not 1 Mac in the Orthodox Canon is the same as 1 Mac in the Ethiopiac Canon. Or if Epistle to the Laodicieans should be treated as canonical for German Catholicism or not, prior to Luther --- except in the article of Ethiopiac canon, or Lutheran Canon.)jonathon 20:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections: Orthodox Christianity adds 17 books? Depends which Orthodox Church you mean. Armenian Apostolic Orthodox does not add one Canonical book to the New Testament. Maccabees are not the same as the Ethiopian books of Makabis. The terms protpcanonical and deuterocanonical are only relevant in a Catholic context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AylesburyDuck (talk • contribs) 10:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

doesn't Bible mean the Christian Bible, according to the dictionary cited in this article bible can means holy book. Followers of Judaism call the Hebrew Bible, Torah, or Hebrew Scriptures. although part of the Bible is the Torah. The Torah does not contain the Bible. I think you should have a separate article on the Hebrew Scriptures/Old Testament. Any way the first line should be changed to say "refers to ... of Judaism or Christianity.

Work in progress and Achievable aims[edit]

The current treatment of Bible related issues at Wiki appears to be:

  • quite substantial BUT
  • quite disorganized

There are several guidelines that really should be developed AND explained so people get on board because they understand the reasons, not simply because they're told "it's policy".

Examples:

  • When Jewish and Christian perspectives are both mentioned:
    • when historical the Jewish should be mentioned first, because it was first
    • when logical, the flow of the issue should determine things, editorial bias cannot be assumed.

Actually, logic will also often place the Jewish view first because Christianity depends on Judaism to make any logical sense.

  • When an article is on a Jewish topic (say Halakhah) or a Christian topic (say Trinity), terms like Tanakh or Old Testament are appropriate.
  • When an article is on a topic of common interest, or J or C views are presented in articles outside J or C themselves (say Abrahamic religions), Hebrew Bible is the prefered term (as far as I'm aware).

These issues are going to come up again and again. If we have no policy, they will get debated again and again. If the policy has inadequate explanation, it will be endlessly challenged.

Five important points

  • Judaism and Christianity are different and neutral terms are not there to suggest there are no disagreements, contra the "all religions are the same and should get on or they are extremists" POV.
  • Judaism and Christianity are very closely related, however uncomfortable that makes adherents feel
  • Judaism came first -- Christian numbers do not give them claim to greater prominence
  • Christianity has happened -- Catholics have to put up with Protestant views in their articles at Wiki, dare I say the corollary
  • Individuals do not "own" pages at Wiki, nor do Wiki projects, we all maintain pages to connect readers with reliable sources, responsibly packaged.

So then, tell me I'm wrong already. :D Alastair Haines 17:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS A disambiguation page at Bible? Wow! That's the most amazing POV fork. Instead: Let's talk!

Hebrew Bible does not mean Jewish Scriptures, it means the Hebrew text of the books considered canonical before there was a Christianity. Hence it does not mean the books common to Judaism and Christianity either (although I couldn't pursuade a Jewish editor of that fact, so it's still the Wiki definition :(). We do not need a Jewish Scriptures article, that is at Tanakh. We do not need a Christian Bible article, Old and New Testaments cover that. Alastair Haines 17:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jews commonly use "Hebrew Bible" as the English gloss for Tanakh. I agree with your other points. I have no objection to a separate article on the Christian Bible. I strongly object to any claim that identifies the Tanakh or Hebrew bible with the old Testament. It is true that most of the text is identical, but texts are not just the words, it is how the words are read and understood and T and OT are radically different texts in this sense. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sl, when you say the texts are nearly identical, but...it is "how the words are read and understood" are radically different, do you mean they are given different interpretations? I am not sure I understand when you say words are read if it is not to interpret. If it is interpet, we are talking about the obvious.
That is not to say that I disagree with you; I prefer seeing a distinction in terms for the two texts. I do not agree with a separate article for Christian Bible. --Storm Rider (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are talking about the obvious. To give a very very crude example: a urinal in a men's room is one thing; a urinal in a display case designed by Marcel Duchamp is something completely diFferent (I am NOT comparing Judiasm or Christianity to a urinal, just tryingto make a point about text and context!!). However, what is obvious to you and me is actually not obvious to many people. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting Bible to a dab page is a patently horrible idea. The protection is wrong too ... but the redirect idea is just plain awful. --B 20:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A disambiguation / redirect isn't a bad idea. For starters, it might allow for a description of the "Islamic Bible" for want of a better term. Reading the current article, one wouldn't know that Islam puts the Torah, Gospels, and Psalms on an equal footing with the Q'ran.jonathon 20:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to agree that (a) things are disorganized and there is a lot of overlap; (b) the Tanakh and Hebrew Bible articles in particular appear to be on the same subject in their current state and either should be merged or their subjects clarified and distinguished; (c) the idea of a Christian Bible article that explains how Christianity looks at both the Old Testament and New Testament as a whole sounds like an idea that may well have merit, although I have no expertise in such matters. I will leave the benefits of a summary article vs. a disambiguation page to others. I will be off-Wiki for the Jewish sabbath, but would not object if someone else finds it appropriate to unprotect the page. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. And to be clear: I do not object to a content fork, only to a POV fork. That said, I do not object to one article that traces the historical relationships between the Hebrew and Christian Bibles either. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Minor comment to Slrub, in my experience at Jewish schools and conferences, they often say Bible to one another when speaking English rather than Hebrew (or Israeli;). Yes, English gloss for Tanakh is clear from context. However they say Bible not HB, why use the modifier at a Jewish conference? In other words, I think it is precisely this use of the word Bible in the Jewish community that makes it natural and appropriate that this article view the definition of Bible from both perspectives and be inclusive of the Jewish "narrow" definition of its contents, as well as, say, Orthodox "expansive" definition of its contents.

Is the Bible "Religious Writings"?[edit]

The 1st premis to correct, in regards to the Bible, is to stear clear of the notion of it being "Religious Writings". It can never be understood in this context. It has religion in it and is the source of Judeism/Christianty. However these are in the context as the example of Israel demanding a king. Though it was told before that this would happen, 'The septer shall never depart from between Juda"s feet till Shilo comes'. It was not the original intent. Same with Judeism. The Israelites were to observe the 'Passover forever in their generations'. However they demanded a religion from Aaron and they got a religion, the golden calf: When Moses returned he broke the Ten Commandments, returned back up the mountain and returned again to the people with a religion 'The Book Of The Law' that was placed on the outside the ark. What we call today Judeism. Again, not the original intent. Also they never again kept the Passover as originally intended. It was kept Religiously only. So you can see where I'm going in regards to Christanty. 'Many shall come in my name and decive many' Jesus said. This is the first false notion. Making the Bible into a religion.

I can't find spell check, so plaese pardon my errors... I am also not a very good writer. Sorry again. I wouls welcome any responce. Again, I am not a good witter to be easy with me. Thanks.

Dave cncdavellc@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cncdavellc (talk • contribs) 23:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave, please sign with four tildes, and consieer registering. Also, use colons to indent. Finally, I think some of your points may be vlid and valuable but you need to familiarize yourself with our core content policies. If I understand you correctly, I urge you to study our WP:NPOV policy - and consider how it applies to the point you are making. In short, if you are suggesting a change that violates NPOV, we will reject it. But if you are suggesing a change that increases our compliance with NPOV, we will accept it. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dave makes an excellent point. The Bible, whatever the set of books, is a collection of ancient documents. Religions are interpretations of those books. Religions are by definition POV, notable POV. Wiki violates NPOV if it fails to distinguish the difference. Not only do I agree with Dave, I think it is the single most important thing for us all to grasp. Alastair Haines 03:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. Are you trying to get us to 'grasp' your idea about what religion is, or suggesting some change to improve this article? Religion seems to suggest that religion includes or encompasses religious writings, among other things. Wesley 04:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is that question for me Wesley? I'll assume it is. First, please leave "me" out of it. I'm trying to present what I think the majority of readers would probably understand. (How can we know? Well, unless stats are available, swapping guesses is the best we can do.) Is "thou shalt not bear false witness" a religious comment? No! Hamurabi law #1 says it! Is "thou shalt love the Lord your God with all ..." a religious statement? Yup, of course. What about proverbs quoted from gentile sources? Hmmm, dunno. Now where do you draw the lines on these things? Hmmm, dunno.
I think it's great this question is being asked, because it takes the issue away from Jew v Chrn. Let's make it Mod Pagan v Judao-Chrn. And let's set an example of objectivity by saying, yup, the texts that are incorporated into the various canons called Bible are historical texts first and foremost. The process of canonization is in fact a selection made on a set of documents for what are perceived to have religious value. The result of that process is a book known as Bible.
English literature (and other areas) have an analgous process whereby certain documents are considered to be especially representative of features of historical language and literature.
In this article we are looking at the value judgements made by Jewish and Christian communities regarding which books are authentically normative for their communities. From liberal perspectives in those traditions, the communites thus selected their own normativity a fortiori. From conservative perspectives, the communities actually arose as a consequence of the inspired texts a priori, canonicity in the conservative view was a recognition, not a definition of what constitutes authentic religion.
Sorry to be so unclear. Hit me over the head again. Alastair Haines 06:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that some contemporary religions indeed involve interpretations of these ancient and in some cases not so ancient texts. However, I know of no historian of the Bible who does not take it as axiomatic that these are religious texts i.e. texts produced by and for religious people. indeed, thi sis a cornerstone of biblical criticism, a major element of which involves contrasting Biblical narratives with contemporary or prior narratives that were either non-religious or from othe religious traditions (e.g. comparing the Noah Story to the story of Utnapishtin). What these historians do emphasize is that the religion of Israel - the nation that produced the Hebrew Bible - is different from the religion of contemporary Jews. Some historians suggest that the religion of early Christians was sufficiently distinct tht one could not identify it with the religion of Christians today (identify meaning it is idential). But the Hebrew and Christian bibles were written as religious (or sacred) texts. The Hebrew Bible even names as its sources othe texts that were presumably not sacred, so the text itself makes the distinction. I think the real issue here is the degree to which the article is historical. I happen to share that POV that the J text meant one thing when it was first composed; another thing when it was combined with other texts to form the Hexateuch; another thing when it was made part of the Hebrew Biblical canon; and another thing as it became an object of midrashic elaboration after it was canonized. I think this matter belongs in another article 9content fork for reasons of length and focus) but should certianly be indicated here as one major view. I am sure there is a comparable view, that Jesus' wodrs and deeds had one set of meaning for his contemporaries; another for the first Christians following his crucifixion; another for followers of Paul, and so on. But is this the point David is making? it is not clear to me. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm definitely biased by reading about the Song of Songs. It is certainly not clear that this document has been uniformly considered a religious text, either in original composition, or in later use (ancient Rabbis complained about its secular use).
Anyway, having said that, I think you are refering to historical facts that I agree are significant. But most importantly, the historical reality of ancient texts of religious (Egyptian book of dead), non-religious (Caesar's Gallic Wars) and mixed purpose (Hamurabi) is just the raw data assumed in the majority of ancient history and linguistic academic literature.
We cannot write this article to inform just Christian readers, or just Jewish readers, students of ancient history and language are interested in the Bible — the historicity of the documents, textual criticism, etc. even more than they are interested in interpretation, let alone the question of modern application. The last aspect is absolutely vital in the modern expressions of religion, whether it is approached liberally or conservatively. Interpretation is way more complex than historicity and needs many, many articles.
I wonder if the realism of covering Bible (in 50kb or less) should help us decide to primarily address basic historical questions. Without POV forking, more content forking, treatment of religious interpretations would naturally fall into Tanakh, OT and NT. Actually, this would liberate those articles to be more religious and less "neutral". If people complain the NT article is too "Christian", where's the historical stuff, people could point to this article -- actually at the "higher" level. Actually, I think objective history should probably predominate at NT also, it is at the level of articles on particular books that we can major on midrash, or interpretation or whatever you want to call it. Alastair Haines 06:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Is "thou shalt not bear false witness" a religious comment?'
If claimed to come from the mouth of God, of course it is.
It seems to me that the Bible is a collection of books that only IS a collection because it was compiled by religious people for religious reasons. The only reason it EXISTS as a collection is for religious reasons. So of COURSE it's "religious writings." That might not be the purpose of (say) every line in Proverbs, but it's why Proverbs is IN the Bible in the first place. No religion=no Bible. Carlo 12:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Carlo, that's a clear and concise statement of the views of liberal traditions w/in J and C. :) No religion => no canon => no Bible. Conservatives focus on the contrapositive of this: Bible => canon => religion. However, from a non-religious, netural position, the books exist and say stuff with or without religions that may or may not canonize them. I think Dave's point that started this thread was that the books of the Bible speak for themselves. Religious interpretation of them can do as much harm as good. I think he is suggesting that the article can be improved by more focus on the books, and less on religious interpretation. :) Alastair Haines 14:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not one considers the bible "religious writings" depends, I think, on the question being asked. If the question is "which books" (canon) then there is no doubt that the bible is a set of religious writings, as per User:Cfortunato's comments. If the question is "which text?" then these are probably religious writings as well. Virtually all the extant manuscripts have been preserved courtesy of religious institutions. On the other hand if the bible is viewed in terms of interpretation, I think there is ample evidence to claim that in both ancient and modern times the text is sometimes religous and sometimes not. For ancient times, we have the above points about the "Song of Songs". For modern times we have numerous "bible as literature" classes in universities around the world. Egfrank 11:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that a "Bible" is the cannonical text of a religion. And it is the religion which tells us which texts are canonical (and hence which texts are "Bible"), even if academics might have a different opinion. Best, --Shirahadasha 12:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is useful to reduce the term bible to "canon". Biblical studies generally includes all three: canon, text, and interpretation though some communities and time periods have emphasized one or the other. For example, in your average yeshiva - canon and text are a given and a mikra (bible) course will deal almost exclusively with interpretation. On the other hand the masoretes were passionately interested in text. Rabbis in the post 2nd temple period fought over canon. Academia has also gone through phases and even today there are marked differences in focus among universities. In the 19th century, almost all the interest was in canon and text. Interpretation was assumed to be obvious. In the post modern era, interpretation is no longer a given but universities still differ in their interest. Hebrew University's biblical studies department tends to be extremely strong in textual criticism. Bar Ilan and the Machshevet Israel department of Hebrew University have much stronger reputations for both religious and literary approaches to interpretation. Best, Egfrank 12:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Shirahadasha means that we consider these texts "Biblical" because they were included in the canon. In any event, I fear this discussion is a waste of time as it so far has not passed the NOR threshold. I agree that we should provide all significant views of the Bible, including the views of non-religious people. But the non-religious Bible scholars I know all recognize that the biblical texts are religious texts. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I think User:Slrubenstein has a good point here. I personally wouldn't object to putting a "religious writings" link or category here. Other than that, I think Slrubenstein is right that offering our opinions on this question won't help us improve the article. Best, --Shirahadasha 14:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then lets consider this topic closed. So long as the revised article provides links to both secular and religious uses/interpretations of the bible, I'm fine. I also agree with User:Slrubenstein that our debates aren't adding much. However, I think its important to point out that the religious/secular debate itself is notable - notable enough to be the subject of at least two supreme court cases whose fallout continues to this day to influence the library and curriculum choices of USA public schools.(see http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/religion/bl_l_AbingtonSchempp.htm, Abington_School_District_v._Schempp, The Case for Teaching the Bible.Time magazine, March 22, 2007) Best, Egfrank 15:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Egfrank hits the nail on the head with the division into canon, text and interpretation. Contra slrub, that is not egfranks original contribution to the subject, but standard classification across tradtions and outside them. That division is a scientific, verifiable, non-religious approach to describing "Bible". The question of whether the Bible is religious or not is actually at least two questions, both related only to interpretation. 1. It involves how people have understood the text to deal with themes considered "religious" (a non trivial idea, but defining it is beyond the scope of this article). 2. It also involves how groups considered "religious" have circumscribed the contents of what they consider normative literature within their tradition. "Bible", despite normally being accompanied by a definite article, does not refer unambiguously to a unique entity. It is a term applied to an historical collection of literature within various tradtions, or in commenting upon them. Actually, scripture is the generic term, Bible being associated specifically with Jewish and Christian scripture.
The above objective classifications are helpful because the Bagavad Gita, which is "scripture" for Hare Krishna, but not "Bible", is an epic poem as regards literature classification, and only "religious" under the interpretation of certain communities. Bible is thus the name given in Jewish and Christian tradition to the books historically considered canonical. As it turns out, most of those books would be classified as "religious" genre writing by any third party. However, "religious" is irrelevant to the definition of Bible, because perception of true religion was essential to acceptance into various canons. There were a considerable number of religious, historical and "other" works that were explicitly excluded from the canons. The important element documented in historical sources of canonical debate and in modern commentary upon such debate is "inspiration" -- which books are deemed "prophetic". This is particularly evident in the case of the former prophets in the "Tanakh" interpretation of canon. What a third party would consider history, conservative Jews and Christians consider inspired theological history, hence canonical (irrespective of how "religious" may be defined).
So Dave's point, that launched this thread, suggests to me an insight that can be used to sharpen the definition of Bible in the lead. Egfrank pointing us to the standard tripartite analysis of biblical literature also strikes me as helpful for guiding the structure of the article.Alastair Haines 23:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with this definition of "Bible", although I would get there by a somewhat different route. The WP:Naming conflict guideline says that ordinary English usage, rather than specialist usage, should guide how Wikipedia articles are named and subjects defined in the event of a conflict. My understanding is that the purpose of the guideline is to reflect the fact that Wikipedia is geared to the general non-specialist reader and should organize subjects the way the lay non-specialist expects to see them, with article content then explaining how specialists see things differently from non-specialists. The simple dictionary definition of "Bible" is substantially the same as the above, the sacred scriptures of Christianity or Judaism. See e.g. [1], [2]. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work Shir. BTW Dave has offered to write more about what he's thinking. I hope it stimulates us to further clarity. Definitions and explanation need to be aimed at non-specialists, but of course it's the specialists who provide the sources we consult. That's our challenge isn't it, to help the 19 year-old cultural studies student at Harvard from India with an introduction to text, canon and interpretation in the Jewish and Christian traditions, accurately reflecting specialist sources in non-specialist language. I think the article already does a lot of this well (I didn't start the thread), but surprize, surprize there's room for us to refine our understanding of what the article should be about. ;) Alastair Haines 02:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave closes on thread he started[edit]

Hello again.

If it’s okay with everyone I’ll backup somewhat to make more clear where I’m coming from. At times I perused Wiki and liked it very much. Thank you very much.

Out of curiosity I searched ‘Bible’ and the first line was ‘Bible refers to the canonical collections of religious writings’. Well, I know that the Bible is not religious writings. So I thought to be helpful I would correct this error. I was unaware then that to correct this error with a Bible study type approach is not in line with Wiki policies. My bad. The first response was corrections re: signing my name/got that…. registering/?.....colons to indent/?.....study WP:NPOV/did that. Having to rethink the error of ‘religious writings’ and staying within the Bible and Wiki policies I thought I had an answer but I don’t. The only way I see now to explain this would be viewed as POV or OR. When at times I talked with people and set straight an error it was always coming from a religious POV to a truth. The search for truth is not within the scope of this forum. I’m the one in error being here and I don’t fault this site or anyone who participates in it. I’m just not in the right place.

tnx againCncdavellc 08:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

And if I may speak for all of us. Thank you Dave. Very clear. Very honest. You got us thinking. Also, I think we've agreed your instinct, be it POV or religious or whatever, actually matches ordinary usage very closely. Perhaps for different reasons, the change you suggested will probably be made after all. :) Alastair Haines 09:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical methodology and common knowledge[edit]

If User:Slrubenstein is concerned that the canon/text/interpretation framework is "original research" - doesn't that raise issues of Wikipedia:Common knowledge. I wonder if we can find some suitable citations in introductory biblical studies books or tertiary sources that describe biblical studies for the general public? Egfrank 07:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree Slrubenstein is correct to demand, on behalf of the reader, evidence that this is an independent, neutral and verifiable approach. The Wiki articles are exegesis and hermeneutics (of modest quality). The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy has a typically excellent article on hermeneutics.
As I dredge my mind for a good book outside my own theological tradition (or even within it) I draw something of a blank atm. There are many that speak of these things, but at great length.
Here's a web-site, that's more concise and helpful. It's written for Christians using Christian examples, but the FAQ section shows how it presents the approach from the neutral point of view. It clearly notes that several Christian groups do not accept the method (some in toto, others in part) on the grounds of prior committment to other principles.
I think the comments at this page regarding the speculative nature of source criticism (e.g. documentary hypothesis) echo the kind of concerns for objectivity and reliability we have at Wiki (it's OR!). This does not suggest the exclusion of such PsOV, just that placing them in a framework aids a reader in forming an appropriately balanced opinion.
I would also like to comment that the modern terminology often distracts people from the fact that the rabbinic and masoretic traditions were doing this centuries before anyone else, but with different names. The qeteb/qere notations in the Tanakh note a few places where the masoretes believed words to have become corrupt in the transmission of the text (textual criticism), and the mikra gadolah provides rabbinic commentary to guide interpretation -- an "improvement" on the targumim that paraphrased text. Alastair Haines 11:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Bible' italicised[edit]

Shouldn't the word 'Bible' be italicised in the article, just like any other book name on Wikipedia? Madder 21:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word Wikipedia is also not italicized. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's because Wikipedia is a website, not a book. 'Bible' should be italicised. Unless anyone has any objections, I will italicise it. Madder 15:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word " bible " or " Bible " is common and not proper ........ With all due respect , the reference to it in any instructional , educational or informational forum ( eg: Wiki. ) should always be " Holy Bible "......... perhaps the example " hey you " as opposed to " hey John " might help to clarify the difference between common and proper .......... please do not regard my statement as opinion ( POV ), because it is verifiably not , but rather is qualified by the publishers ( approved experts ) of the book called the " Holy Bible "......... as well most all published dictionary references to the word 'bible' stating it as a " Holy " book ........ further , historically the books content has been declared as " Holy " .......... if we have any intention of aiding humankind in the search for wisdom and knowledge , we will strive to avoid deflationary tatic , just plain lazyness and bad habit ....... Pilotwingz 04:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally am open to your suggestion. Could you help me understand what holy or Holy means? Alastair Haines 05:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Alastair for affording the opportunity to do so ....... the word " Holy " is the singular possessive characteristic of " GOD " .......... and properly applies to no other source , regardless if one believes in God or not ........ it is God's official title alone Pilotwingz 05:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alastair , because you have used the word " help " in addressing me , I offer you the best I am able to present with personal recomendation ,, please use the effort and time nessasary to read the words written in the Holy Bible for yourself , regardless the outcome you owe at least that much to yourself ......... within the Holy Bible you will discover exactly what " Holy " means ........ the Gosple of John ( 4th book of N.T. ) is a beautiful place to start if you have not already done so ...... this is the best I have Pilotwingz 05:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear brother, I have read John's book, and just as he wanted, I believe the things he wrote, and I love the One who loved him. I also love you for your desire that these things be true for me. ... I do hope we can continue to work out what is best to be written on a Wikipedia page. Christos anesti Alastair Haines 08:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that fits well with my understanding also. How would you explain the original meaning of colloquial use of phrases like holy grail and holy of holies? How do you think holy is understood in modern language? I'm not being negative, I'm just exploring, I hope you don't mind. Alastair Haines 05:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The origin is contained in the words written in the Holy Bible ......... Holy has been explained prior , and grail refers to the cup from which the Apostles drank at the Last Supper ( * Lord Jesus did not )........ Holy of Holies is the Sacred place behind the curtain where the Ark of the Covenant was kept , and only the current High officiating Priest Israel was allowed to enter for purpose of praying to God for the redemption of Israel's sins ........ it is not mine determine for others how Holy is understood , that is the work of the Holy One Himself , it is only mine to present and protect the word Holy ....... but since you ask , I think it is the same now as it has always been and always will be " Holy ". Pilotwingz 06:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you give very clear answers, based on things I know are documented, may I ask a related question? The New Testament refers to Jesus sometimes just by this personal name alone, other times as the Lord, yet others as the Lord Jesus or even the Lord Jesus Christ. Do you think it is appropriate for unbelievers to call Jesus Lord, if that is not what they believe? Jesus himself is reported as saying, "Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord,' and don't do the things I say?" (Luke 6:46). I'm not sure unbelievers have a right to call Jesus, Lord. I think there is a case that people should be discouraged from using the abbreviation AD, for example, unless they are publically confessing Christians. What do you think? Alastair Haines 08:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

.............................. You may ask anything , anywhere at any time ......... To ask of me personally , submission to the understanding that I possess only my limited abilitys to discern ( distingush ) as opposed to decern ( legally order ), is mandatory .......... under this protocol my answer is yes , you may ask me ........ I do think it appropriate for unbelievers to call Jesus " Lord " should they so desire ......... in contrast unbelievers may say anything they desire about Lord Jesus ( they are accountable unto Him , not me ) ... ( further , it is forgivable by Lord Jesus and therefore by me - my personal hope and desire )/ Luke 12:10, {1 John 5:16 , is perhaps the most important , you may be given Life to give unto them who have trangressed the Lord }, Matt. 12:31-32, Mark 3: 28-29 ) ......... as for 'anno dimini'( the year of our Lord ), the same appropriateness will apply ......... pertaining to the case of discouragement , I must firmly disagree , for who shall know the way of the Lord's love and passion that not one be lost ......... and in conclussion , I ask the same question , " why do they who do not know Him , call Him ' Lord , Lord ' ?? Pilotwingz 18:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right, unbelievers may say what they like, they may show respect using Lord, or use something more neutral while they "count the cost" of coming to faith. How is your question, "Why do they who do not know Him, call Him 'Lord, Lord'?" different to, Why do they who do not know Him, call His Book 'Holy'? Do you call the Qur'an Holy? Do you call it Noble? Alastair Haines 01:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Alastair for your attention to the core topic of the original consideration requested by "Madder" [ bible or Bible italicised ] and " my statement " in support of proper and complete title [ Holy Bible ] ......... first I must correct myself ( publicly ) in regard to my most recent post prior ........ specific correction is directed to my use of the words " same question " ........ although they are simular questions , they are not the same .......... Lord Jesus said , why do you call me Lord , Lord ,, and I ask " why do they who do not know Him call Him , Lord , Lord ", thus redirecting and catagorizing those who I ask my question about specifically as " they who do not know Him " ,,< correction made > .......... now , in response to your question regarding ' how is my question different than yours ' { answer }>where I conclude the question with " call Him , Lord , Lord ?? ", and you conclude the question with " call His Book 'Holy'? " .......... other than I have addressed the Lord in person ( Him ) , and you have addressed His words ( Book ) ,, I am unable to discern any difference , because both Lord Jesus and His Word(s) retain the same singular possesive characteristic ( attribute ) " Holy " .......... should anyone desire to ask of me if I believe to be true what I just said about Lord Jesus and His words as Holy , my answer is without a doubt I do !!! ...... though my belief is not valid cause for source Wiki. and it's inquirers to acknowledge Lord Jesus or the Holy Bible as " Holy " , the previously cited sources ie; Holy Bible publishers , dictionarys , historical record , plus encyclopedias and all humankind who have believed that " Holy " exist , is a valid cause for Wiki. to continue to apply the word " Holy " in appropriate and proper manner ....... thus " Holy Bible " ( Christ ), or Holy Qur'an ( Islam recitation ), or Holy Torah ( Israel ), etc. more ....... Alastair , in brotherly love I reciprocate the same , so with all due respect I say here , that for others it is may not be about what you and I believe to be " Holy " , only that we have responsibility to preserve the name of " Holy " , and since this Wiki. project is indeed Christianity , it seems to be a no brainer to me " Holy Bible "........... it is carved in stone , " For those who believe in GOD , no explanation is necessary ; For those who do not believe in GOD , no explanation is possible " ....... thank you Pilotwingz 05:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Pilotwingz 06:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pilotwingz, In response to your comments, I spent some time looking at different publishers. There are many bible editions that are not titled "Holy Bible" and many that are. Among those that do not are the Amplified Bible, the Jerusalem Bible, the New English Bible, [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Study-Bible-Revised-Apocrypha/dp/0195290011 The Oxford Study Bible] and many others. Some of these use the word "Holy Bible" on their inside cover page. Some use "Holy Scriptures". Some just repeat their title.
In common speech, neither Christians nor Jews use the term holy all the time before the word "bible", even when their goal is instruction. Think about banners for "Vacation bible School" (not Vacation Holy Bible School) that hang on churches each summer and all the "Bible study" classes (not Holy Bible study classes) held by both Jews and Christians throughout the year.
Jews have as much claim to the bible as Christians - we have the texts of the bible today because generation after generation of Jews carefully preserved each letter of the Hebrew Bible. Yet Jews almost never use the word "holy" before the word "bible", especially when they discuss it in Hebrew - the original language of much of the bible. This isn't because they value it less, but rather because "holy" means set apart in Hebrew. Jews believe that God's Word isn't meant to be set apart, but rather should be an intimate part of our daily lives. Best, Egfrank 07:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[I wrote the following, simultaneously with Egfrank's reply above]

Well said, and a good argument. It is verifiable that many, if not most, copies of Bibles, in the English language, are printed with the title Holy Bible not merely The Bible. I believe it is similar in English speaking Jewish publication, Tanakh The Holy Scriptures is the usual title for the Jewish Bible.
However, when I talk with friends about the Bible, or when I hear Jewish friends talking with one-another in English about the Bible, the word holy is rarely necessary. Sometimes people say God's Word, rather than Holy Bible or Bible and they mean exactly the same thing.
The same person is meant by Dr. Jane Doe and Jane Doe. At Wiki only the latter form is used, without disrespect. In the same way, the New Testament itself sometimes says Jesus, other times Lord Jesus. No disrespect is intended in scripture when referring to Jesus without titles.
So, I am not as yet pursuaded that this article should be called Holy Bible. However, the only good argument for italicizing Bible, as the title of a book, would be if we did in fact use the title common in publication, i.e. Holy Bible or The Holy Bible. Bible, Qur'an etc. are quite different to book titles, they are proper nouns refering generically to texts traditionally considered inspired, irrespective of the title under which they are published.
Hence, the following:
  • The King James Version is one of the earliest English translations of the Bible, and still found in liturgical use today.
  • The Message, by Eugene H Peterson, is a free rendering of the Bible into contemporary English.
  • Codex Vaticanus is an ancient copy of the Bible in the Greek language.
  • The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible and includes several additional books, also considered canonical in Catholic and Orthodox tradition.
Are there places you think I am in error here? I make lots of mistakes! ;) Alastair Haines 07:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Declaration of Independence, Constitution of the United States, treaties, statutes, and similar classic legal documents are not italicized even though they are documents and often book length, although particular editions of them are. --Shirahadasha 17:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not " King James Version " , but Holy Bible, King James Version ( title is Holy Bible ) , correct ?? ... Pilotwingz 01:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether I approve or not, but there is this entry at [http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Authorized-James-Version-Apocrypha/dp/0192835254 Amazon.com,] published by Oxford University Press. Alastair Haines 05:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dear Egfrank , Hebrew word root for Holy , 6918' > kaw-doshe , Sacred ( ceremonally or morally ),( as noun ) GOD ( by eminence ) Holy ( One ) ....... Strong's Ehuastive Concordance of the Bible ISBN 0-917006-01-1 ......... yes , you are seeing right , Strong's published title " of the Bible " , not of the Holy Bible .......... I still request Holy , because it says something " God " ......... to remove Holy from Bible , is as much as seperating God from Bible ......... or so I think , thank you ...... Pilotwingz 02:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, although I'm sure God appreciates your concern, the whole Holy = God argument actually explains precisely why it is not needed in reference to the Bible. Consider the Christian phrase, when I want the truth, I go to the Word. Word capitalized refers to God's Word.
Ancient Israel was surrounded by many other nations that used the same word kaw-doshe, in those other nations the word was used to describe anything belonging to a god and elevated from the ordinary things of life, sometimes this meant the word even referred to temple prostitutes.
However, in Israel itself, there was only one God, and that God was full of goodness and had no evil. Kaw-doshe also referred to what belonged to God and was elevated from the fallen, dirty things of life. Israel's temple allowed fallen people access to this Holy God via a system of sacrifices to clean things from their fallen, dirty nature.
Holy means something very special and specific in the writing of the Bible because it can only be applied to one true and living God who is speaking in its texts. In fact, it takes on the characteristics of that God, so prostitution is no longer a possible association, for example.
Because the word holy took on the characteristics of the God to which it referred, God himself is sometimes simply referred to as the Holy One of Israel or even the Holy One. In fact, in biblical language, it is possible to say, Holiness testifies that ... meaning God himself has declared. In short, Holy became a synonym (sometimes circumlocution) for God himself.
Bible means book, Holy means God, Holy Bible means God's Book. Can Wikipedia say to the world the Holy Bible is God's Book? Actually, they cannot, that would be biased against all who do not believe this. What Wiki must say is Christians call the Bible the Holy Bible or God's Word, otherwise they are biased against Christians.
Please, if the article fails to say that Christians call the Bible the Holy Bible you must use the edit button and change the text so that it does say this. Wiki depends on people like you to make sure that the text is not biased against Christians (or in favour of them). Does that sound fair? Alastair Haines 06:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki. , all the things written ( to standards ), on all the subject topic , from all conceived POV , to not be bias .......... preservation of concepts in word form ........ the pilot has landed ......... thank you Alastair , thank you Egfrank , thank you Madder , thank you Shirahadasha ......... please preserve Holy as allowed , when allowed by non-bias standard ....... Pilotwingz 20:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

corrected a misspelling Pilotwingz 02:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN beginning with 0-19 , is OUP , correct ?? Pilotwingz 02:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amaz.link , KJV and Holy Bible KJV , yes both exist Pilotwingz 03:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you've worked it all out! :D
Stay tuned Pilot! :D
Alastair Haines 04:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In principio erat Verbum , et Verbum erat apud Deum , et Deus erat Verbum .Pilotwingz 00:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

En arche en ho logos, kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos. :) Alastair Haines 00:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you all misunderstood the question, though your discussions on Israeli priests and brotherly love are, of course, fascinating. 'Bible' is a book, just like any other book, however much you value it. Other book names on Wikipedia are italicised - so why isn't 'Bible' ? Madder (talk) 01:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Becaue in English, for whatever reason, we don't capitalize the titles of sacred works. For example, in Turabian's guide to the Chicago manual of style: "Capitalize but do not use italics or quotation marks with these special types of titles: ...scriptures (the Bible) or other revered works (the Upanishads), as well as versions of the Bible (the King James Version) and its books (Genesis...)" It also cites the Koran and the Vedas as books which should not be italicized. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Carl, I believe there is another aspect to the convention. Italics are used for the titles of works as known in publication. In the case of the Bible, this would be Holy Bible. This convention would also clarify that holy is applied in the context of publication, not as a Wikipedia assessment. So Madder could quite correctly alter the proper noun Bible, to Holy Bible, without violating NPOV or standard conventions for using typeface. At least this could be done were it not for the fact that it would then exclude Tanakh the Holy Scriptures which is not published under the name Holy Bible.
For an example of recent use of Holy Bible see Todd Jay Leonard, Talking to the Other Side, (iUniverse, 2005), p. 105.
This, in fact, answers several recent questions, I would think. Yes, Bible can be italicized — Holy Bible — so long as holy is part of the title, reflecting most common usage. Yes, Wiki can use the term Holy Bible as standard English for Bible, so long as it is italicized, objectifying the modifier holy. And, yes, a Wiki namespace Holy Bible rather than our own neologism "Christian Bible" would be possible were a content fork deemed desirable. My suspicion, however, is that these three options are directly counter to the intentions of those raising the questions. Altogether, I think the status quo (not Status Quo) has much to recommend it (though Status Quo are pretty good too).
Alastair Haines (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that my personal desire to address the Bible as the Holy Bible , is because I believe it is Holy as in part of God , specifically as His Words to us His creations . ( and that from this Christian's view ) .......... but that is not my only reasoning , I believe it was given that title of Holy by it's publishers to give relevence to it's theme , albeit a Christian one ( and I really don't know of any other book titled the Holy Bible for other faiths and religions ) , and that councle should not be deflated .......... I would hold that same respect for any other publication such as Holy Jewish Scripture , Islamic Scripture and others , though admittedly with regret in certain cases ........... my intent is not to change the world , but at the least " to preserve it and to me Holy is at the top of the list ....... so when the Bible is spoken of in proper context ( at least a Christian context ), Holy Bible just seems correct from any direction I view it .......... as for capitalization of ( B ) in bible , again if in proper context across the board to those who call their Holy books bible , I would have to vote , yes ......... thanks , Pilotwingz (talk) 02:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)... I really wish I could spell better LoL,, Pilotwingz (talk) 14:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LoL[edit]

I've been a bit slack commenting on a page without reading it first! Now I look at it there's some obvious corrections needed. I've removed the rather glaring error that the Tanakh has 39 books!!! The article correctly goes on to list the 24 books of the Tanakh.

For those who don't know, Tanakh is the Jewish POV on the Hebrew Bible (NPOV term, which has 39 books), and Jewish interpretation divides it into the three sections T-N-K. Old Testament (Christian POV) is an ambiguous term because there are at least half a dozen different Christian interpretations of how many books to include and how they are ordered and structured. There are 39 in Protestant traditions (which are based on the Masoretic Text), more in Catholic and still more in Orthodox, Catholics taking the Vetus Latina (Old Latin) and Orthodox taking the Greek LXX as somewhat normative.

The gender neutral language section is POV, surprise, surprise. The view exists, but the substantial criticism of it is not mentioned. When I get some time I'll provide text to cover the criticism. Google Colorado Springs guidelines on Bible translation for more information if anyone is interested.

How on earth did 39 books for the Tanakh get into this article. Isn't there at least one Jewish editor watching this page who knows how many books there are in the Tanakh! Or does counting them amount to original research. ;) Alastair Haines 06:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strike out my cheap comment above. It reflects an attempt to vent some frustration at a tense moment of uncertainty. I have a lot of pages on my watchlist and hope no-one ever holds me responsible for edits made on pages I watch. I am, however, responsible for edits I make, like the comment struck out above, so my apologies to all those gracious enough not to ask me for one. Alastair Haines 18:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on the User:Luqmanskye proposal[edit]

User:Luqmanskye's proposal and David's query have developed into a fruitful discussion. With the page now unprotected, several days of discussion, and the Jewish and Christian days of sabbath/worship behind us, I wonder if it now time to summarize the points raised and discuss how to reorganize this article, and (dare I say) discuss how to divide up the work. (I hate the idea of our investing this time without actually making something happen :-)).

So far, there seems to be consensus on the following points:

  1. Replacing Bible with a Bible (disambigaution) page is a bad idea
    Note: User:Luqmanskye and jonathan dissent because they would like to avoid controversy - User:Slrubenstein has countered that the avoidance of controversy is an example of a WP:POVFORK and against wiki policy
  2. The article Bible should include (and may be missing) some key information that belongs in a gateway article for such a broad subject:
  3. We need to prioritize the contents of this article because it can easily get overlong. User:Alastair_Haines (also see WP:LENGTHand above where User:Skele expresses concern about length)
  4. User:Alastair_Haines has suggested we use the common definition brought by User:Shirahadasha in the lead and use the canon/text/interpretation framework to structure the overall article.

I hope I haven't left out or misrepresented anyone's thought - if I have - please feel free to strikeout,overwrite, add to, or briefly qualify the above so that your viewpoints are accurately represented. Kol tuv all, Egfrank 07:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! That's beautiful work Egfrank. You do make it seem like we've been making progress, and I think you're right. Later, much later, I may raise some points regarding circularity. It's an astute observation, and one that is made in some good literature. The positive thing is these "circles" are not always "viscious" ones. Alastair Haines 10:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only a weak proponent of "Bible (Disambiguation)". If one article can contain all of the different viewpoints, without an edit war, then go for it. (If any description of how an organization defines and interprets the Bible gets too long, then spin it out as a separate article.)jonathon 16:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note that there is an exception to WP:POVFORK called WP:POVFORK#Articles whose subject is a POV clarifying that it is legitimate to have articles whose subjects can legitimately be regarded as being points of view. Communism and Capitalism, Biblical literalism and Biblical criticism, etc. don't have to be on a single article. Religion tends to be one of those messy classification areas where there can be disagreement as to what is a subject and what is a point of view. Because people can disagree (and members of this very discussion have done so) on whether a denomination's canonical Bible represents a distinct subject in its own right or simply the denomination's point of view on "Bible" as a more abstract subject, I don't believe the WP:POVFORK policy forces a call one way or the other and there's a certain amount of discretion. I agree the majority of people voicing an opinion have preferred a summary article over a disambig and I believe both have given reasonable reasons for doing so. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A not-so-modest proposal[edit]

Would anyone object to the following reorganization of the bible article:

  • Lead paragraph - (a) cites the dictionary definition using the citations brought by User:Shirahadasha (bible=Jewish and Christian "scripture") (b) explains the canon/text/interpretation framework that guides the study of the bible.
  • Major sections
    1. Etymology
      • brief review with link to Wiktionary:Bible article (we may want to expand the Wikitionary article - etymologies are generally more dictionary material than encyclopedia aren't they?)
    2. Canon
    3. Text
      • briefly discusses the role of the major manuscripts that have influenced Jewish, Christian, Muslim, academic and other reader communities of the bible. In the interest of saving space we should probably leave a full listing of influential manuscripts to a sub-article and focus on the highlights: Masoretic text, Septuagint, Vulgate, Dead sea scrolls, Cairo geniza fragments, and the earliest NT papyrus fragments (P52?) and the earliest complete NT.
      • briefly reviews the development of textual criticism from ancient times to the present. The gory details can be reserved for a sub-article.
      • it might also be helpful to have a brief mention of the social and political implications of textual criticism. I believe this has factored large in pre-reformation Christianity, but its probably a good idea to take a look at what might be written on the social/political impact of the Masoretes as well. To a certain extent the current denominationalism of Judaism also has its roots in the growing power of textual criticism. I believe this has lots of sources in the liturature on Jews and the Haskala. Again though: keep it brief and put details in a sub-article.
    4. Interpretation
      • identify key terminology for breaking up this very large topic into manageable chunks: hermaneutics(=methodology), exegesis(=application of a methodology to specific texts), and homiletics(=cohortive/inspirational use of exegesis) as applied to the bible. have I missed some terms?
      • review and name the major interpretive tradition within Judaism, Christianity, secular academia and elsewhere with links to sub-articles that describe the history, controversies, methodologies in detail. Provide appropriate links.
      • briefly summarize common external influences/parallels
      • briefly summarize cross influences/parallels (yes this will make some uncomfortable - sigh)
    5. Secular/religious tensions.
      • Define "secular", "religious" in the context of biblical studies.
        Might be easier said than done - after all this matter went all the way to the US supreme court and generated a fair amount of verbage in our own discussion. We may just have to settle for a working definition for this section of the Bible article with a sub-article explaining the gory details.
      • church-synagogue-state tensions
      • intellectual tensions: This takes at least two forms: (a) debates within religious traditions about the role played by religiously-neutral text study within a religious tradition or environment and (b) various attempts to tease out the non-religious components of biblical texts. Post modernism being what it is I hazard to guess there is also an academic literature about the extent to which religion can be stripped from the bible while still doing justice to it as an object of study.
        These debates are notable and need to be mentioned even though I know it will be difficult for us to write this up. I sense that as a group of editors this is a live issue for us all. I think though we should steadfastly refrain from stating any opinions about what side is right and why (in other words recuse ourselves) and limit ourselves to the reporting of the nature of the debates. Anything more than that belongs in a sub-article where the inevitable debate is more likely (I hope) to stay on-topic.
    6. Social and political significance of the bible
      This section could briefly cover a developing literature on the secular role of the bible. I imagine it would include classics like Max Weber's theories about bible/protestant ethic, the creationist debate, and more recent books like The Secular Bible:Why non-believers Must Take Religion Seriously. Again a sub-article is probably needed for this huge topic and we'll have to be very selective about what gets into the Bible article.
    7. Literary and artistic significance of the bible
      • Briefly reviews the influence of the bible on Western (and other?) artistic and literary works.
      Again this is a huge topic and needs a sub-article. Its main reason for inclusion is to alert the reader that this topic exists. We can't possibly do this topic justice within the Bible article.

If I've left out anything that someone feels should be in an overview, please feel free to add to the above proposal or suggest an alternative. Kol tuv, Egfrank 09:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support: both for the broad structure, and for lots of the detailed points. I think the social consequences of textual criticism in pre-reformation Christianity is a great idea. I'm very keen to learn about its parallels in Judaism. Once again, loving your work. Alastair Haines 10:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I think this is a good start, just some comments: first, I think that the divisions among religious people are actually greater than the division between religious and non-religious people. By dividions among religious people, I mean those who believe that the Bible is the literal word of God or divinely inspired and those who do not, and between those who claim the Bible must be read literarlly and those who do not. Religious people who take the latter view on each question will read the Bible almost identically as non-religious people, it is just that its personal significance will vary - something very subjective (like, the difference between people whose lives were changed by reading Dostoyevky, and those who were not - they can agree on most things about any of his books, it is just that some people get really excited about reading it and others don't). Slrubenstein | Talk 11:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting point, but to avoid a long diggression, I'm responding below in a separate section. Egfrank 13:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second, social and political significance ... Weber's analysis of protestantism is predicated not so much on the Bible as on a set of Protestant values that Weber argues are not tied to the Bible, so I don't see the relevance. You might want to have a section on how people have refered to the Bible in debates about slavery and a range of civil-rights issues, but I think personally this gets too far from the Bible and too much into American politics, or french politics, or British politics. My same comment goes for the influence of the Bible on Western art - this merits its own article; I would write the article first (if it doesn't already exist) and then just add a summary and link here.Slrubenstein | Talk 11:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A good point - and not something to think of as one-time-only: as the sub-article develops we should be regularly checking to make sure that the summary in the main article is still the best possible summary. Egfrank 13:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: what is meant by church-state-synagogue tensions? Let me point out that these are not comparable: the state is a soveriegn set of social institutions. Church can refer to something comparable to the state (e.g. "the Church" i.e. an institutionalized religion i.e. Catholicism or Presbyterianism) or it can refer to "churches" - heterogeneous, independent and sometimes very informal institutions. Synagogue means "meeting house" and there is nor formal organizations of such meeting houses for all of Judaism.Slrubenstein | Talk 11:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Put this way, you are right it is a bit of a strange term. Church-state, synagogue-state or the more inclusive church/synogogue-state is a term that appears frequently in US politics and in political and social analysis of the USA. It sometimes also arises in Israeli political discourse - especially when the commentators are from the USA. And its a very important theme in Western history. It refers to the tensions that arise when one attempts to separate the institutions of religion and state. If you'd like to learn more about the term, you might start with Separation_of_church_and_state. For this issue as it relates to the bible and the US educational system, try Abington_School_District_v._Schempp and Creation-evolution controversy. From there I would go on to a google search and then your local public or university library. Egfrank 13:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final point: to do justice to the major interpretive traditions, both those that are theotropic and those that are historical/sociological, would themselves take up an immense amount of space to do justice to them. I think what you are suggesting is basically a summary of the Mikraot Gedolot and midrash (including Zohar) for Jews, and for starts the Anchor Bible for the non-theological/religious interpretations - books that would fill several shelves. And believe me, I wish that summaries were available in an on-line encyclopedia. I think the only workable sollution, aside from general interpretations of the canon as a whole, is to start work on linked articles for each book of the Bible, contrasitng different points of view/interpretations. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did mean separate articles (or improved versions of existing ones) for each of the interpretive traditions. But you raise an additional good point - there is so much material we would eventually need articles that specialize in individual books and a way to network them with each other so that a reader could find (a) all different interpretive traditions for Job (b) a book by book summary of midrash, Mikraot Gedolot etc. That's the whole point of hypertext. But one step at a time....I wonder has anyone even done an assessment of the wiki coverage - a kind of biblical 1911 project for biblical interpretation?
A final point that your comments drive home - one role of an effective summary is to help us find the right questions to ask (and people think this is about answers!) User:Slrubenstein, thanks so much for your thoughts. Egfrank 13:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, would you be so kind as to add the Zohar to the list of Jewish interpretive sources that should be considered in Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism/Manual of Style - it is missing; it should be there; and you should get the credit for noting it. Best, Egfrank 13:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read several chapters of Jacob Milgrom's wonderful Anchor Bible commentary on Leviticus very carefully and many times. His bibliography is wonderfully broad as well. Although we can't reproduce that kind of scholarship at Wiki, I hope I'm speaking for all of us if I say it's a great model of the sort of approach to take. Who said what when in response to whom -- a compressed dialogue: like following a talk page, but with NPOV narrative connecting it; like what Egfrank did in refactoring our discussion above. In the very long run we're not really deciding to leave anything out, just groping after levels of priority -- where to content fork, what is notable enough to sit at the top of the food chain, and what gets more detailed treatment in more specialist articles. ... but I'm saying nothing new, I've noticed chrystal clear comments from Slrubenstein in articles going back years. Mind you, on this topic, I'd dare to float the idea that sometimes conservatives and outsiders agree contra progressives, but that still reinforces his point that internal debate re the Bible is often the most intense and divergent. A fun thing about Jewish and Christian contributors working on a page together is, on some issues, that conservative/progressive divide will be more significant than the faith divide. And that's what many readers want to hear! An authentic summary representation of the issues. Between us all, I think we can generate enough understanding of the logic of competing views to present the core points fairly. Alastair Haines 16:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This outline, although it has some very good points, appears to be written entirely from the academic point of view. I don't have time to write an alternative outline right now, but I believe at a minimum the outline should start with the present text, include the traditional religious views of how these texts came into being and came to be canonized, then bring in academic views of how they did (we could discuss order). The different viewpoints have different opinions about which texts influenced them and how these texts came into being. (It should be noted that even Orthodox Judaism is not monolithic; for example, the Torah of the Yeminite tradition differs by a few letters from the Ashkenazic one) Agree that only brief summaries are appropriate and details can go in sub-articles. Given Egfrank's discussion of "church state tensions," I'm still not convinced it is relevant to this necessarily brief summary article. I do want to clarify that the religious points of view need to be presented as points of view, not simply as data on which academic points of view operate. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For responses, see #Treating religious points of view as points of view and not just data.

Support Although in my mind points 6 and 7 should be treated as a single point to be subdivided:

6. Influence of the Bible.
6A. Socio-political influence of the Bible. A new article could be written to cover the "gory details" of the Bible's influence on society (that is, society in general) and politics through the ages, starting with the Council of Nicaea.
6B. Influence of the Bible on arts and literature. Here also, this could be covered in detail in a separate article and addressed briefly here.

Regardless, I think the points under the new plan should be written before the reordering is done. --Blanchardb 17:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once the reorganization is complete, a peer review is in order. I want this article on the FA list. --Blanchardb 20:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Treating religious points of view as points of view and not just data[edit]

This section was originally a response to User:Shirahadasha's comment here but has ended up a discussion in its own right. The original comment that triggered it is copied below, followed by responses Egfrank 13:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This outline, although it has some very good points, appears to be written entirely from the academic point of view. I don't have time to write an alternative outline right now, but I believe at a minimum the outline should start with the present text, include the traditional religious views of how these texts came into being and came to be canonized, then bring in academic views of how they did (we could discuss order). The different viewpoints have different opinions about which texts influenced them and how these texts came into being. (It should be noted that even Orthodox Judaism is not monolithic; for example, the Torah of the Yeminite tradition differs by a few letters from the Ashkenazic one) Agree that only brief summaries are appropriate and details can go in sub-articles. Given Egfrank's discussion of "church state tensions," I'm still not convinced it is relevant to this necessarily brief summary article. I do want to clarify that the religious points of view need to be presented as points of view, not simply as data on which academic points of view operate. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I don't understand what is meant by "academic POV" except the NPOV, which I thought was mandatory. I'm quite happy to agree, if only I could understand. In fact, Shir seems to be presenting the academic "POV", because the ultra-conservatives are not concerned about composition, transmission and canonization, what matters is original inspiration, for which the text itself is considered the only authority. That is a POV I would consider religious, and needs articulation in the article.
Regarding the current text, I do not think that listing all the books is necessarily helpful, since we have articles in which to do this. At the Bible parent level in the heirarchy, there are competing collections and orderings that need laying out side-by-side for NPOV presentation. However, this problem is removed at specialist levels.
On the other hand, discussing Torah first, common to all (and Samaritans), may have legs, and explain later divisions of the canon. Prophets called Israel to "remember the covenant", in historical (former) or poetic (latter) genres. They presuppose the Torah. This is, of course, the conservative approach (spiritual) and literary critical approach (neutral/unspiritual depending who you are).
I'm not trying to provide solutions here, just adding more detail to issues.Alastair Haines 02:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Shirahadasha, I know this is an important issue for you. But having studied the bible in both a religious and academic context, I'm also not sure what you mean. These things aren't always easy to articulate, but perhaps you could explain what is "non-neutral" about the academic perspective?
I'm also wondering if you are conflating the "academic" point of view with a particular anti-religious stance that was common in academia up until at least the mid-1980's? Since post-modernism has taken hold there really has been a sea-change. When I started Princeton in the early 1980's I used to do these huge intellectual dances just to get the idea of faith and religious commitment into the dialog. It is one of the reasons I ended up focusing on the psychology of religion and chose Psychology as my "official" major. At least there I had a valid argument when I said the religious reader's perceptions mattered. But twenty-five years later the world has changed - we have Michael Fishbane (bible -Chicago), Norman Cohen (midrash - HUC), David Weiss HaLivni (rabbinical literature-NYU), reader response criticism, semiotics, and an entire post-modern literary critique that has been used to justify the study of midrash/rabbinic commentaries/zohar and any other interpretive tradition on its own terms and in its own right. The only thing academia asks in return is that we connect our insights into a larger meta-framework that makes it possible for an intelligent reader to compare and contrast the different viewpoints and traditions.
As for the outline - its intent is to provide such a meta framework. The bible is both an object of study and an actor in history. An overview article needs to address that issue. The canon/text/interpretation sections provide a gateway to various answers to the question "what is the bible?" (object). The two "Significance" sections provide a gateway to the various answers to the question "how has the bible been an actor in history". Hope that helps, Egfrank 04:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess these are among the difficulties of attempting to be a Modern Orthodox Jew and attempting to live in multiple worlds. I guess my basic issue is that the traditional religious perspectives should be characterized as points of view and beliefs about history in their own right rather than simply as legends or similar (of course attributing them properly) and second, that we discuss the role in contemporary religions from the religions' internal points of view, for example explaining the relavant prominence as a source of law as distinct from a source of narrative. As to non-neutrality, I think the WP:NPOV policy attempts to disclaim any attempt to attain a single "most neutral" point of view and regards neutrality as the ability to navigate through contradictory points of view without the article becoming too attached to any. From this perspective, the religious views aren't "less neutral" than the historians' views, they are just different. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem that you are concerned with the same problem that faced me back in the 1980's at Princeton. Fortunately, I think most (though not all) of academia has woken up to the fact that characterizing Jewish traditions as "legends" (a.k.a. fairy stories) is derogatory and POV. In the main, today's academia is far more self reflective. For example, Michael Meyer, a reform Jew and academic (HUC) observes in his survey of modern Jewish reform movements (Response to Modernity), "It is characteristic of reforming movements that they seek precedents...In making their case, some of the Reformers were not averse to setting forth a one-sided, distorted view of Jewish history." (p. 3).
Hermeneutic issues (method) such as the need to understand the distinction between "source of law" vs. "source of narrative" are also recognized and considered intrinsic to the scholarly process. There are a number of good books on the difference between halakhic and aggadic midrash, their role in talmudic and later rabbinic debates on halakhah, musar, and homeletics, etc. (At least most places... the talmud department at Hebrew University is frequently criticized by my friends as only being concerned with how many girshot (editions) support a particular wording of a particular passage of the talmud - a number of people have ended up at Bar Ilan just so they can actually talk about what the text says(imagine that!)... ah well, some things change slowly...).
I agree with you that this is a hugely important topic in Jewish interpretation and I think you make a good point that it should be at least mentioned in an overview (though this too probably needs its own article). To the best of my knowledge, Christianity knows no such distinction (Alastair please confirm) and has not developed any formal methodology around it. From time to time the New Testament is used as a source of law (e.g. the Catholic and Christian evangelical right's position on divorce, homosexuality). By and large Christian tradition has been deeply ambivalent about the bible as a source of law and the protestant traditions especially often see law in opposition to relationship. By contrast, we Jews rejoice in the bible's commanding quality and consider it part of God's gift to us - a seal of love, the wedding ring given in exchange for the eternal covenant between God and the Jews.
In terms of your own struggles, I encourage you to read up on some of the current academic literature - I think you might have some pleasant surprises.
As a final thought, I wonder if a bibliography on post-modernism and the history of religon and academia for the Bible, Jewish and Christian projects might not be a good idea? For the atheists and secularists who occassionally have an interest in the religon pages it might help loosen their certainty that anti-religous=academic/intellectually honest. For those of us coming from a religious perspective it might give us some added confidence in articulating our views. Egfrank 06:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am more and more encouraged by the discussion here. Just as I thought, ordinary Jews and Christians face a common challenge of "defending" the rationality of their confidence in biblical text, against analysis that presupposes these texts to be constructed ex nihilo or from preceding texts. As Egfrank notes from personal experience, modern scholarship regarding the Bible is actually very interested in "response readings of faith", and we're speaking of academics who do not even share that faith. There are, of course, also many academics publishers who are affiliated with particular faiths or denominations, naturally these strive to present the positions of contemporary faith communities and even extend the understanding of these communities.
I think I can confirm what Egfrank says regarding a significant difference between Jewish and Christian scholars. I understand that halakah is very central to Judaism and interpretation. There are two law based dialogues in Christian scholarship, but they are very different in character to Judaism. One of these is specific to the Roman Catholic Church, which has Canon Law, the rules that govern the church, which are based on but go beyond the Bible. Because RC doctrine views the RC church as the only legitimate body of God's people on Earth, this is important to them, in a way that may parallel some Jewish thought (only what is kosher is truly of God). Protestants (liberal or conservative), from inception, were against the idea of an earthly magisterium.
The other huge area of dialogue among Christians is the place of the Law of Moses in Christian life and practice. There is a widespread view called antinomianism by Christians, normally advocates present themselves as anti-legalism. More educated Christians have a sophisticated tripartite understanding that considers the ethics of Torah to be binding (love the Lord + your neighbour), its application to 1st and 2nd temple periods (cities of refuge) not to apply, and the sacrificial system of atonement to be fulfilled — the distinctive Christian teaching regarding the crucifiction of Jesus. There is other very subjective writing on these topics, and also some truly excellent work with different angles. Little of it is likely to make this page I'd imagine, because law is generally not a defining theme of Christian interpretation, just one of several significant ones, largely thanks to that turncoat Pharisee Saul of Tarsus. ;) Alastair Haines 09:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a specific example of the concerns involved might help: this diff. The "In the Bible" section of a classical Judaism article (on the Jewish conception of "charity") was rewritten to reflect an entirely critical viewpoint in a way that removed all prior references to classical Jewish scholars' views of what the Bible said and their thoughts about how it influences the subject at hand,. And moreover, the new content seems to look at the subject in a rather mocking, dissapproving way. One wonders at a worldview that can see even giving charity as nothing but worthless superstition. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also disturbed by this article. The tone and organization may be "biblical critical" but you would have had plenty of grounds to object to it using the critical method alone.
As to structure: On purely academic grounds, I think this article should start with a summary of what this word "means", not the sources from whence the meaning is derived. As you have aptly pointed out Wikipedia standards and general good writing principles say to start with the most likely question a non-expert would be asking and only then move on to the more detailed knowledge of experts. "What?" and "So what?" usually precede "how'd it get this way?". Tzedakah is a core religious and social concept within Judaism that has taken on a life of its own apart from its sources. So I would tend to agree with User:IZAK's instincts that this article should begin with a description of that. IMHO, David was wrong to remove that section.
As for the "In the bible" section: It's a disaster, again on critical academic grounds. (BTW many of these criticisms also apply to the pre-David version):
  • one can't define a term using two quotes out of 157. The totality of uses is very important. Context and set phrases (of which tzedakah has many) must be carefully considered. This is bad linguistics. It is bad semantics. It is bad exegesis. It is just bad.
  • When a language is built around a root system as is Hebrew, one can't ignore the morphological connection between tzedek (segolate mishkal) and tzedakah(the feminized form of the segolate) and claim that the connection between the two is strange. One especially cannot ignore the connection when it plays an integral role in practically every book of the prophetic tradition. Again: bad linguistics, selective reading, bad exegesis.
  • Ever since Robert Alter's [http://www.amazon.com/Art-Biblical-Narrative-Robert-Alter/dp/046500427X The Art of Biblical Narrative], you would probably be remiss if you didn't also pay special attention to the narrative context of the word. In doing so we open up a world of meaning that leads us deep into serious questions about the nature of tzedakah. To illustrate this point:
    • It matters that the first use of the word Tzedakah (Gen 15:5) in the Jewish canon appears in the story of God promising a son to the the rich but barren Abraham (then called Avram) and that immediately after something(?) is counted as tzedakah (Note: the subject of the sentence is implicit. Christian tradition assumes that Abraham's belief is the subject - Jewish commentators have explored the potential ambiguity in the phrase and played with a number of different possibilities about what is being counted as tzedakah). There are no widows and orphans here, no poor harvesting the corners of fields - just a man who has lost hope of ever having a son of his own and a God who seems to be making promises even God can't keep. Is it that tzedakah and hope have some integral relation? How is tzedakah connected to life and our ability to nurture it? The text is begging us to ask a question. Our answer will frame the way we read the rest of the biblical narrative.
    • It matters that the first entrance of tzedakah comes after Avram refuses even the appearance of charity from the King of S'dom but accepts God's promises of a rich inheritance. It matters that the one credited with tzedakah (Abraham) is at first glance the receiver and not the giver. Interpretations may differ, but the narrative context is demanding we ask some hard questions about who is really the giver and who is the receiver in an act of giving. One might even consider the possibility that it is God(!) not Abraham who is the beneficiary in this story. Or, as a responsive reader, we might want to consider our own lives and wonder whether it is we or the object of our charity that is benefiting?
    • It matters that the word appears only two other times in Genesis. the phrase "tzedakah u'misphat" found in Genesis: 18:19 just after visitors on their way to the king of S'dom announce that Sarah is pregnant and again in Genesis 30:33 where Jacob refuses gifts from Laban ("You shall give me nothing (30:31)") and then connects tzedakah to his tending of sheep - a task through which he becomes very wealthy. All three places where the word tzedakah occurs are stories of hope and fruitfulness that have faint literary echos that harken back to the story of Adam and Eve. It matters that many of the key in the Adam and Eve story have ayin and resh in their roots (evil=resh-ayin, crafty=ayin-resh-vav-mem), curse=ayin-resh-vav-resh, skin=ayin-vav-resh) and in the first and third use of the word Tzedakah, a pivotal word also has ayin and resh. In Gen 15:15 Avram describes his barren condition as ariri (ayin-resh-yod-resh-yod) and in Gen 30:31 Jacob offers to tend Laban's sheep - e'r'eh (alepha resh ayin heh) - an act that makes him a wealthy man and eventually wins Rachael and enables his escape from Laban. It matters that a variant of the climatic "ayekha" (where are you) that God calls out in the garden of Eden is used in the second story accompanying the second occurence of tzedakah when the visitors ask "ayeh" (where is she) before they announce Sarah's pregnancy. It matters that the third use of tzedakah ends with trickery related to the color of skin and Adam and Eve story ends with God clothing the couple in skin. It matters that the expulsion ends with a recollection of the pain of child birth and the difficulty of earning a living, but the three uses of tzedakah are tied to stories that include the laughter of Sarah at the birth of a child who himself is called "he laughs" and the overwhelming success of Jacob at "earning a living". Given these parallels it is not entirely improbable to conclude from the narrative context alone that the text/author/Author/redactor (take your pick) wants us to compare these stories and consider the idea that the covenant with Abraham is the redemption of Eden. And by using the word tzedakah to tie these stories together, the text leads us to one of the pivotal questions of both Judaism and Christianity: the connection between tzedakah and redemption.
I could go on in this vein and each claim or observation I've made above may or may not be citable, but I think the point I'm making should be clear by now. A close critical reading of the biblical text without benefit of rabbinic commentaries doesn't have to be dry and meaningless. What is even more interesting is that it often leads us to the same place as the Midrash. The rabbis knew their text and sometimes things we assume are Oral Torah are actually right there in the form and structure of the text waiting for the careful reader to dig them out. Whether or not what I've written is OR (it or at least the synthesis most assuredly is) is irrelevant. There are many good works available on-line and in university libraries that discuss text in a similar vein and are considered biblical criticism and academically legitimate.
Secondly, as long as one makes it clear that Midrash is the interpretive framework of a particular community, any midrashic interpretation can be discussed on its own merits. Good academics won't let us claim this is "the one and only" meaning, but then again neither will WP:NPOV. For that matter, neither will Jewish tradition - in the Mikraot Gedolot we line our differences of opinion side by side and rejoice in the diversity - Rashi next to Rashi, Rashi next to Ibn Ezra, Ramban next to Rashbam. Elu v'elu d'varim elokim chaim (these and these are the words of the living God). Kol tuv, Egfrank 13:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I love your careful and sensitive reading of the text. The Christian tradition you refer to is documented as being originated by Saul of Tarsus (as I suspect you know, Romans 4). I would be interested to know if you felt Romans 4, minus the last sentence, was a reasonable case for gentiles to place their trust in the God of Abraham. I'm excluding the last sentence, because it applies the argument to Jesus of Nazereth, but I suspect the argument holds without that reference. In other words, Saul was merely arguing an orthodox position regarding God-fearers, then applying it to Christians.

I imagine you may also be aware that Christian scholars have finally discovered that Christian oversimplifications of Judaism as exclusively legalistic are precisely that, oversimplifications. "Kosher" action follows faith, it doesn't precede it. It is the faith that lies behind obedience that is love for God and precious to him, obedience itself is valuable only to us. This was not a Christian invention or discovery. Forgive me if I'm not clear. Alastair Haines 16:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Romans 4 and Jewish theology[edit]

Excerpted from the discussion of #Treating religious points of view as points of view and not just data Egfrank 11:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC): ...I would be interested to know if you felt Romans 4, minus the last sentence, was a reasonable case for gentiles to place their trust in the God of Abraham. I'm excluding the last sentence, because it applies the argument to Jesus of Nazereth, but I suspect the argument holds without that reference. In other words, Saul was merely arguing an orthodox position regarding God-fearers, then applying it to Christians.[reply]

I imagine you may also be aware that Christian scholars have finally discovered that Christian oversimplifications of Judaism as exclusively legalistic are precisely that, oversimplifications. "Kosher" action follows faith, it doesn't precede it. It is the faith that lies behind obedience that is love for God and precious to him, obedience itself is valuable only to us. This was not a Christian invention or discovery. Forgive me if I'm not clear. Alastair Haines 16:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume by "orthodox" you mean standard or main stream? "Orthodoxy" as a movement developed in response to the enlightenment (Haskalah) as reaction against Jewish Reformers who felt that Jewish ritual observances should be reinterpreted based on academic and philosophical methods popular at the time.
As for what was "mainstream" at the time of Paul - its not entirely clear. Paul was a pharisee by training. The Talmud and Mishnah is a product of the pharisees so one might want to use those sources to determine what Paul might have considered mainstream. At first glance that should make it easy to date ideas - each opinion is attributed to a Rabbi and the generational relationships between rabbis is well known. However, the Talmud and Mishnah were written 200 years later so there is no way to know if a particular opinion was really from Rabbi X or just attributed to Rabbi X by a later generation.
That being said, I have a hard time believing that Paul was trying to describe "God-fearers". The problem is two fold: (a) Paul's concept of law and (b) Paul's concept of justification. Neither sound particularly Jewish. Although Paul associated law (=nomos) with the Law given to the Jews, functionally speaking the concept of law developed in the mishnah and talmud is quite different from the one used by Paul. In Paul law is a system of justification that serves only to underscore the distance between humankind and God. In the Mishnah and Talmud, law is a system of case piled upon case, whose main purpose seems to be the opportunity it gives to gain insight into the nature of justice, correct relationships between human beings and service to God.
The second problem is the idea of justification. Whether you take all of Jewish tradition as a whole (as I suppose User:Shirahadasha does) or as a historical development (as I do), I think you'd have a hard time showing that "justification" was a category of Jewish thought. Jews have always lived in a world of grace and believed in a God of Grace. Not just for themselves but for the entire world. There is no theology of justification in Judaism because there was no need.
Judaism has never really imagined that we could be so perfect that God would be "forced" to be nice to us, call us good, approve of us, or whatever else justification means. The bible and later rabbinic tradition always seems to attribute redemption and salvation to some motivating force within God, not some successful ploy of human beings. Every time somebody tries it, we end up with towers of babel that fall to the ground or the ground opening up and swallowing people or some other equally nasty nonsense.
When Abraham pleaded for the people of S'dom, he didn't say they were great people. In fact, it is pretty clear he knew they were not. After all, it was Abraham who was bargaining down the head count. Rather he asked God to spare them based on God's own nature - "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?". When the psalmist cries out to God in Psalm 130 also doesn't point to his own good deeds, but rather to God's nature: "If You, LORD, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand? But there is forgiveness with You, That You may be feared." (Psalm 130:3-4, trans. New American Standard Bible). This psalm plays a central role in the Yom Kippur liturgy of all Jewish movements, even to this day.
God's willingness to turn a blind eye to human limitations I think is beautifully captured in this 4th century midrash where even Truth is pushed away and Peace ignored so that God can create humankind:
"Rabbi Shimon said: In the hour that G-d was about to create Adam, the angels of service were divided. Some said: 'Let him not be created.' Others said, 'Let him be created.' Love said, 'Let him be created, for he will do loving deeds." But, Truth said, 'Let him not be created, for he will be all falsity.' Righteousness said, 'Let him be created, for he will do righteous deeds.' Peace said, 'Let him not be created, because he will be full of strife.' What, then, did the Holy One Blessed be He do? He seized hold of the truth and cast it to the earth [where it broke into pieces] as it says, 'You cast truth to the ground' (Daniel 8:12)." (Bereshis Rabbah, 18:5) (translation borrowed from here)
So much for Pax Romana - God has other priorities. Fast forwarding to the present, modern drashot (sermons) continue this message whether at the liberal/progressive/reform or orthodox ends of the Jewish world. Here's but a few examples:
Rather, I see Romans as Paul's an attempt to create a bridge between the Roman world and the Jewish God of Grace (Hebrew: El malei rachamim - God full of compassion). The Romans lived in a world of law and justification. You were in or out based on where you fit into the law: slave, female, Roman. Even your right to live depended on status: a free Roman male could beat or even kill his slave, wife or children at will. How strange the idea of a God who wanted a relationship with all humanity free of charge must have been to those who grew up in the Roman world!
Paul overcomes this strangeness by making two arguments. First he likens the Torah to Roman law, but with a twist: in this divine court, belief in God's promise, not perfect adherence to a set of rules, lets one "win" and escape punishment. (Romans 4) Second, he likens Jesus's self-sacrifice to the price paid in an act of manumission that transfers ownership of a person's will from "sin" to "righteousness". (Romans 6).
Kol tuv, Egfrank 11:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Above, Alistair writes, ""Kosher" action follows faith, it doesn't precede it. It is the faith that lies behind obedience that is love for God and precious to him, obedience itself is valuable only to us. This was not a Christian invention or discovery." This is not my understanding of Jewish thought at all. When I was in school the midrash on "We shall do and we shall hear" was always emphasized; Rosenzweig puts the values of the midrash into theological language rather beautifully. maybe there are some Jews, or historians of judaism, who share Alistair's view but from everything I taught it is not a mainstream Jewish view and wasn't in the first century CE. Egfranks thoughts are interesting but aside from NOR issues which require us to use verifiable sources, I would recommend to you guys - if you have not already read it - Boyarin's A Radical Jew, a Talmud professor's analysis of Pauline theology as a very Jewish - just very un-Rabbinic - response to Helenism, both of which competed for dominance in the wake of the destruction of the Temple. I cannot judge his scholarship in terms of scholarship on Paul in general. But based on what I know of Judaism at that time, Boyarin does a remarkable job of showing how Jewish he is while also pinpointing the radical breaks with the emerging Rabbinic Judaism. It is a complex argument to which I cannot do justice; if you are interested in Paul and the Pharisees though i would consider it essential reading (and very enjoyable) Slrubenstein | Talk 19:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reference. An on-line version of Boyarin's book is available here for those interested. There is a nice summary of various trend in Pauline studies at the beginning of Chapter 2. The survey ends with a summary of Boyerin's thesis: He sees Paul as a cultural critic of the Jewish community of his time and a radical proponent of prophetic universalism.
I'm not sure, however, that Boyerin deals with the question that Alistair is raising. He seems to deal with every chapter of Romans, except Romans 4. Despite his assertion that E.P. Saunders forever changed the face of Pauline studies by killing the old tendency to reconstruct 1st century Judaism through the eyes of Paul, he himself does just that when he asserts at the end of chapter 2 that "Moreover, it seems likely that for many Jews of the first century, not only did these practices mark off the covenant community exclusively, but justification or salvation was dependent on being a member of that very community." If I were to have used him as a source to answer Alistair's question, I would have needed him to have spent more time constructing an extra-Pauline source for that assertion. Kol tuv, Egfrank 19:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! Is it the whole book or just a part? If you found what you read at all interesting I recommend you read the whole thing. If you want I can try to summarize but I read it several years ago and do not remember everything clearly. While I do not remember whether he specifically addressed Romans 4, I do believe he sees Paul's theology of justification as a function of other theological claims Paul made rather than 1st century Jewish thought. I am not sure how to read the sentence you quote out of context - he may believe it based on his knowledge of the Mishnah aan midrash, or it could be pure speculation, or something in betw2een (i.e. something that he thinks fits in with what we do know but for which there is no direct evidence). From my recollection of the book, the line you quote is not a central part of his argument. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The on line edition is not only present in full, but also searchable! The sentence I quoted was part of his summary of his thesis. The sentence summarizes the Jewish viewpoint that he feels Paul was critiquing with his universalistic message. I wouldn't have expected him to support his claim at just that place. It is after all a summary! However, since he is claiming that Paul is a social critic, it would have been nice to demonstrate later on that the idea that was being criticized was present (or better yet prevalent) in Jewish society of that time. I couldn't find a place where he did that.
The closest he comes to dealing with the issue of justification in Jewish literature is Chapter 5, but the only support he gives for a Jewish concept of justification is the claim that Greek word is a loan word from Hebrew. He doesn't do any exegesis of the Hebrew word and the linguist in me cringes a bit at the assumption that A=loan word means A has same meaning in both lendor and lendee language. Loan words have a habit of taking on the connotations of the surrounding culture and their meaning can sometimes diverge greatly from their original culture.
BTW your recollection that he said something about midrash and justification is correct - however, the connection has to do with Paul's reasoning. He argues that Paul modelled some of his claims to the Galatians using the devices of midrash prevalent in his time.
As for using rabbinic midrash, etc. Boyerin doesn't seem to be spending much time at all relying on his knowledge of rabbinic literature, but rather the training in 2nd temple and early post-temple contemporary culture that went with it. His argument that Paul was speaking in a Jewish voice relies heavily on non-canonized (i.e. extra Written/Oral tradition) 2nd century literature and some moderate biblical analysis. Also he is much more interested in Paul's social commentary and its relevance for today. Since this is his goal, Paul's thought rather than an analysis of Paul's Jewish mileu attracts most of his attention. In his intro he argues that Paul needs to be reclaimed by Jews as a significant thinker and in his final chapter, he relates Paul's idea to current trends in Judaism. Kol tuv, Egfrank 22:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for being so slow in finding this thread, directly answering a question I asked. It's hard for me to respond, because nearly everything both of you say is new to me, I'm just reading, learning, thinking, ...
I've followed the link and started reading Boyerin. You were right, "enjoyable", he grabs me. Very clear, simple, direct use of language, an honest presentation of his own motives, access to a wealth of specialist knowledge and sensitivity to issues that don't normally come to my mind. (I found his eirenic juxtoposition of "Jewish, non-Christian" particularly winning — for the purposes of his discussion in this book, at least, the two terms will not be held as strictly mutually exclusive.) I really like his boldness in suggesting "reclaiming" Paul as a source for analysis of 1st century Judaism.
BTW, I have been considered rather unorthodox within Christianity for challenging what I think is a preoccupation with one particular New Testament metaphor as characteristic of its overall theology. The Law-Sin-Atonement-Salvation schema is so dominant as to be considered defining of Christianity, especially within Protestantism. Colin Gunton offers several other metaphors that are equally pervasive, and also grounded in the Hebrew canon -- Redemption and Victory for example. (I would argue that marriage is another.)
I would say the same issues are there in reading Paul. He uses multiple metaphors, but one in particular gets preferential treatment in the history of interpretation. I long for considered readings of Paul, that are not overwhelmed by "following the crowd" of post-Reformation commentary. Boyerin scratches where I itch. So thank you again. Alastair Haines 05:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found something I like. "Much more plausible a priori, in my view, would be a conception (closest to Dunn's) that the ultimate inadequacy of the Law [Boyerin is expressing Paul's view, not his own] stems from its ethnic exclusiveness, from the fact that it represents the practices of the Tribe of Israel and therefore is unsuitable as a way of life and of salvation for the Universal Humanity which Paul seeks to institute." Boyerin, "6. Was Paul an “Anti-Semite”?"

It is pretty standard understanding of the NT that it argues for gentile inclusion. And pretty standard that Paul ardently opposed basing such gentile inclusion on them adopting the national (or family) distinctives required by Moses. The whole issue of gentile inclusion presupposes what was then true, that Paul and the other early leaders viewed themselves as both Jewish and Christian. How different things are today! Messianic Judaism is no longer considered the "apostolic" leadership of Christian communities.

Ah! But the Bible talk page is not the place for this discussion. Please shoot me down and close the thread. I'm sure we'll get to discuss this and other issues again as they arise in the course of editing. You've certainly given me a lot of food for thought. Alastair Haines 06:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad Boyerin did scratch the itch after all. I'm also glad you asked the question. Usually issues of Jewish/Christian POV are explored through different reading of the Hebrew bible. It is not often we get a chance to explore them through different readings of the NT. Egfrank 08:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad both of you find some value in reading him. I am not in a pposition to argue with any of your readings of/reactions to him. Here is my own recollection for what it is worth: Boyarin sees a fundamental paradox in the religion of Israel, at least by the end of the Babylonian Exile: Jews believe in one God for everyone, but that the Jewish nation has a unique covenant with that God (I agree that this is quasi-paradoxical and important). he observes that just as some Jews were curious about Hellenism, some non-Jews were curious about Judaism. But what could Jews tell non-Jews, who are not required by Jewish law or thought to obey Jewish law in order to have a relationship with God let alone to be "saved," a concept that is not theologically important in Judaism? I think DB's main point is that Paul has an answer for gentiles. I think DB's main point is that Paul realized that he could develop a compelling answer if he abandoned Rabbinic Midrash for Platonic allegory as a way of reinterpreting the Bible - this allegory contrasts the ideal to the material, the spirit to the flesh, the sirit of the law to the letter of the law. Saul realized that Platonic allegory enabled him to post a distinction between Christ in spirit and Christ in flesh that (1) resolved the crisis facing Jewish Christians, that Jesus did not establish God's kingdom on earth and after his execution each passing year made that prospect less likely and (2) provided a key for his allegorical reading of Scripture that made all of it directly relevant to non-Jews. This revelation (about the way Platonic allegory could re-vision/revise both Jesus and Scripture in a dialectical or mutually reenforcing way), Boyarin suggests, is the light on the road to Damascus that changed Saul into Paul. Pual also realized that if he followed his logic all the way through, it meant there was no difference between Jews and Gentiles (because the difference is only in the flesh, not the spirit) so if Gentiles do not need to obey Jewish law, neither do Jews. Thus the radical universalism Egfrank mentions above. I also think DB has a bold speculation that Rabbinic Judaism developed in response to Christianity. This is because after the desruction of the Temple Pauline Christianity and the Pharisees were the only Jewish groups that offered any hope to anyone of a continuingly meaning and value of Jewish scripture. As Paul's followers became more radically universalist, Rabbis became more radically particular, elaborating in greater and greater detail the laws that define Jewish uniqueness. DB makes two points about Rabbinic Judaism I find insightful and attractive: that the rabbis reject Platonic allegory with its binary between the ideal and material. This is why from the Christian POV (specifically DB quotes Augustin) Jews are a people of the flesh. This isn't quite right, but it makes sense that a Christian woud see Jews this way since their post-Paul theology relies on an opposition between spirit and flesh alien to Judaism. It is also why the Rabbis developed midrash as a sophisticated hermeneutic; it is the opposite of Platonic allegory, in that it is concerned with difference on the surface of the text, differences between words and their context, whereas Platonic allegory relies on the difference between the written text and some disembodied but real or true meaning. I like Boyarin because he presents Paul as very Jewish, but also in a way that clarifies the radical break between Paul and the Rabbis. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: DB develops his view of Rabbinic Judaism in his book Carnal Israel which, in the context of Talmudic scholarship, is deliberately provocative. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that sounds like a great summary for any readers of the talk page who don't have time to read the whole book, but do want to know more about those of us contributing to discussion and the article. It's also brought us right back to issues about interpreting the Bible. Finally, you've raised excellent questions, and shown that scholars, and editors like us, all share questions, that are important and difficult and fascinating all at the same time. None of us are claiming to know everything or insisting others agree with us. And that's our natural style, even when we're not debating an edit on the page. The problem with making edits, though, is we will actually need to agree on some concrete decisions in the end.
I do want to say, I think this discussion has not been a tangent, it has built my trust in and respect for other editors. For me, it verifies their good faith! ;) Alastair Haines 13:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing in on consensus?[edit]

At the rist of forestalling Alastair's attempt to close the issue, I'd like to make a suggestion at this point: that the Bible article be as short and descriptive as possible (I think both of you feel this way); that we or others work on article on individual books of the Bible or collections of books that provide in-depth detailed coverage of the wide variety of interpretations that have been forwarded; then - at it may be easier to do this last - an article on Biblical Scholarship that would cover in general terms the different interpretive strategies and the motives and interests behind them that have been applied to the Bible (obviously with links to other particles devoted to specific interpretive strategies e.g. the Documentary Hypothesis or Remez). My idea is that the article on the Bible would orient readers as to the contents of the Bible, and the article on Biblical Scholarship as to the interpretations of the bible, so both articles together would, in different ways, provide readers with the orientation they need to appreciate articles on specific books. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like that idea. It sounds achievable. It clarifies the aim of articles. Covering a precis or synopsis of the whole Bible is always going to be daunting; but if the most involved sections and issues are covered in specialist articles, readers are not deprived of the spectrum of views available.
But when you said contents, did you mean book names alone, or limited coverage of the contents of those books.
Torah#Contents is so clear and concise it could either be reproduced at this article, or even expanded.
That section alone would be very helpful to many readers unfamiliar with the Bible, but who know about Noah, the plagues on Egypt, the Ten Commandments and so on. They get a "canonical context", they know which book to go to if they want more info.
One problem with book names alone is they differ between traditions, but if we have some narrative, it is obvious traditions simply have different names for the same things.
There's something right about a reader walking away thinking "the Bible's about what happened to Abraham's family" rather than "the Bible's a set of books that people argue about naming and ordering and including".
Should we open a link at Talk:Bible/Redraft so we have a common and public space to trial ideas without disrupting the current article?
I'm also thinking it may help to have a "Bible topics site-map". Something that would show in two dimensions the logic of issues in approaching reading the Bible — Biblical manuscripts, Biblical interpretation, Biblical canon, as well as book articles, famous commentators and so on. Like a page-to-itself template. This is a biggish project, trying to organize the links between Bible related articles. Alastair Haines 19:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean "book names alone." I think it is worth providing an outline of the contents of the book - if doing so would be non-controversial (i.e. can we come up with an outline of Genesis that an Fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist Jews and Christians would agree on? I think so). But I fall back on a procedural point: I think that this article is "good enough" for now, and it would be better to turn our energies to working on articles on specific books. As those articles reach a consensus version that diverse people agree meets our content standards, we can "work backwards" and summarize the structure and contents in this article, and summarize the different interpreteive stances in a "Biblical scholarship" article. You know, people usually read the introduction of a book first - but it is often the last thing the author writes. This is my idea in thinking that focusing on specific articles - does the article on Isaiah provide a good account of Rabbinic, Christian, and critical interpretations as well as an account of the structure and contents of the book that all seem to accept as non-controversial - and then go back to "main" articles on "The Bible" and "Interpretations of the Bible" (or "Bibilical Scholarship") to make sure they serve as good introductions to the specific articles ... Slrubenstein | Talk 19:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki being Wiki, nothing is ever final, and I think the dynamic you point out, that work on individual books will "flow back" to this page is an important one. Mind you, I think that's a very lengthy process. Isaiah alone is very demanding, more than many books, due to length, text-critical issues and diversity of interpretation regarding "servant songs" and eschatalogical material in the final chapters.
As an overall strategy, I think you've described how it needs to work. Regarding immediate practicality, I agree that the current article is adequate, and reworking it needs to be "ironed out" before replacing the current revision in whole or in part.
Most importantly, I agree that a basic report of what the Bible says about itself at a literal kind of level is achievable without much controversy, and with a wealth of sources to support it as a kind of "minimalist interpretation".
Regarding whether summaries come last or first is a more tricky issue. I know people propose that Shakespeare wrote "frameworks" first, then filled them in. I know people have proposed the Christian gospels to have been constructed in this way. Both are examples of the "summary first" approach. They are hardly conclusive, however, I think they do reflect the way many people organize their writing.
We do already have articles on all biblical books. We have something to draw on. I think our big gap at the moment is having a block of text that draws the Tanakh together in the same way the Torah#Contents does for Torah. I'm happy to draft something, collaborate, or offer comment on such a draft. I'm also happy to consider further where such a block of text should "live". At Tanach? At Bible? In an article of its own? Should we produce two "editions" of the text reflecting Tanach structure and Septuagint structure? That would help readers "feel" the meaning of TNK and OT (with and without the contested books). Incidently, it would also help people see how a generic term to refer to the same contents, without reference to the structure or interpretation, is needed in many contexts. Hence people could gain an appreciation of the difficult abstraction "Hebrew Bible".
Finally, perhaps another option is parallel articles: Hebrew Bible (Masoretic synopsis) and Hebrew Bible (Septuagint synopsis).
I think I'm going to start work on a synopsis that's as neutral, concise but comprehensive as I can possibly manage. It can be corrected, of course, and subsets could be modified to suit perceived needs in various articles. Whether it will deserve its own name space, what that would be, or whether it should be incorporated at this page can be discussed at liesure. Discussion will be easier if there is something concrete for people to look at.
If no-one likes it, my efforts won't be wasted, I'll have learned a lot in the process and I can probably use my draft in the context of my own real life.
So what do you think? Would I be wasting my time to put together a draft? Alastair Haines 21:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really on the fence on this one. We need something to explain "who cares/why care", but I'm hearing contradictory things about goals.
  • something short vs. something consensual. The shorter it is the more we need to make editorial choices and the more risk we are for introducing POV.
  • something to tie the books together into a "story" vs. synopsis of each book - I don't know about you but every time I see those long lists of books with one line synopsis my eyes blur over and I begin losing any sense of coherence around the time of the 5th synopsis.
  • something to get people excited vs. something that is reflects consensus - The deep questions and the interplay between human beings and God is what makes the bible exciting (at least to me), but this is exactly where all the POV comes up.
  • something like the Bhagavad Gita vs. the bible is a collection of books with multiple genres. There are common themes in the bible, but no one narrative.
  • something short vs. let the text speak for itself - the art of "letting the text speak for itself" usually requires a careful and detailed reading that is anything but "short".
When this issue first came up, the most I could come up with was something like this and I don't think this is at all what you are looking for:
The Bible is a collection of stories, poems, wisdom literature, speeches, dialogs, prophecy and history that work together to describe the relationship between God and humankind. Beginning with the story of creation the Bible portrays God as both an influence and an actor in history. The stories and writings traditionally included in the Bible capture a range of human interactions with God. In some God is silent and no one even talks to God (Ester,Ruth, Song of Songs, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes). In others humankind talks to God but not the other way around (Psalms). In some only God speaks and human beings are merely God's mouthpiece in history(Micah, Amos, Obediah). In some there is a dialog between human beings and God with each reacting to the other (Pentatuch, Isaiah, Jonah, the Gospels, Acts). The rich range of literary styles and interactions has drawn the interest of many different readers and thinkers from many different religions and even from those who do not believe in God at all.
On the other hand, I hate the word can't. So I guess the best thing is to try your hand at it. We'll beat away at it and eventually we'll have something that will fit the bill. Egfrank 11:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a really nice description of the Bible. It accurately reflects literature about the Bible, even Marx' "Opium of the People." God-content was Marx' objection and opiate acknowledges people's fascination.
You nicely blend a simple, non-technical classification — how does God relate to people in the text? — with traditional literary genre classification. You explicitly include Gospels and Acts, which is generous. I'm not sure it's necessary! ;) Examples from books accepted by all might be the safer way forward. Apocalyptic is possibly worth including in the list. {Letters need inclusion if a comprehensive list reflecting NT (and others like Letter of Jeremiah) is intended.}
Sometimes our goal is not comprehensiveness (which sets canons off against each other), but characterisation, which only needs uncontentious representative examples. In fact it explains, in part, why people extended the canon, they felt that certain books fitted in with the characteristics of biblical literature. We can't define that precisely, who can? But surely we should attempt a "ball park" impression.
By offering this example, I think you succeed in demonstrating that integrated description of the Bible is possible, in a way that is neither OR nor POV, but more engaging and real than lists of names of books and names of places where the lengths of those books were debated.
Perhaps the key thing you got right here is you described the Bible by the relationship the text has to God. Implicitly, your description says "the Bible is [seen to be] all about God" -- it is still perceived that way even when he doesn't speak! This is obviously the claim about the Bible that has made it so popular. However, your main thrust sticks objectively to Bible as text in its own right, and finishes back there explaining that the text itself has intrigued people who don't believe in God. Alastair Haines 17:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SlRubenstein - I am trying to understand your suggestion and your claim that the article is "good enough". Are you suggesting we scrap the proposed outline and leave things as is, or are you suggesting a strategy for the Interpretation section and/or synopsis section proposed by alistair and shirahadashah?

Overview article on interpretation For this, I think we have a consensus. There is currently no good overview of interpretation. On the theoretical level we have at least four articles: Exegesis, Eisegesis, Biblical hermeneutics and Biblical criticism. All of these IMHO have problems.

  • The Exegesis article is actually discussing hermeneutics (the methodology and philosophy that guides the reading of text) and limits itself to religious perspectives.
  • The division into Exegesis and Eisegesis is notable, but I question it as a organizing principle for articles. It makes a disputable assumption about objectivity and turns a blind eye to the practical truth that one person's "eisegesis" is another person's "exegesis". Debates about peshat (exegeis) and drash (eisegesis) go back to at least the second temple or mishnaic period. Any attempt to group biblical reading techniques into one group or the other would get hopelessly mired in debates.
  • Biblical hermeneutics covers only Christian hermeneutics.
  • The Biblical criticism article is stuck somewhere in 1950.

We also have articles on specific methods: Pesher, Pardes, Midrash, Form Criticism, Allegory in the Middle Ages, and so on, but no framework explaining how these techniques relate to one another or how they are used in the interpretation of each book. So yes, we definitely need an overview article that is only briefly summarized in the main Bible article. As for which we write first - its a chicken and the egg thing. One refines the other. I vote for an iterative process. Write a sentence or paragraph for the Bible article. Detail it in a sub-article. Rewrite the Bible article paragraph based on the sub-article. Expand the sub-article. Rewrite the Bible article. etc. etc. Egfrank 11:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix - great idea. I've also been thinking along these lines. In addition to the overview article, I'd like to see something like this:

  • Canon - overview article describing how various books came to be associated with "the Bible" and the point at which each canonical collection branched off. This is too much to put in the main article.
  • article for each major definition of the biblical canon. Within each article:
    • Community - a brief description of the community for which that canon is valid. This should link to the wiki article on that community.
    • thematic synopsis - a synopsis of the main biblical themes for that community. Since there is likely to be a lot of commonality here, we'll have to carefully consider where we want to describe themes. Some are shared by all traditions that view the bible as religiously significant. Some are specific to a particular community. We may want articles dedicated to certain shared themes.
    • branching - a discussion of when that community branched off from the "main truck" of canon development and why
    • status - some communities assign different status to sub-groupings of books in the canon, e.g. Apocrypha is "bible" to Catholics but only edifying to Anglicans. Both include it in their bible editions however. Similarly, all books of the Tenach are considered scripture, but Jews tend to give a special position to the Torah and view the remaining books as an elaboration or extension of the Torah.
    • book list - a wikified list of the books in the canon in order. The books should link to integrative articles on each book. For communities that assign different status to groups of books, we may want to color code the list by status as well.
    • interpretive tradition - a wikified list of interpretive methods used within that community, along with a discussion of their relationship to one another. The list should link to articles on each of the interpretive methods.
    • manuscript tradition - a wikified list of manuscripts, along with the priority placed on those manuscripts. Manuscripts should link to articles on those manuscripts.
    • translation tradition - a wikified list of major translations used by that tradition. Each translation should link to an article on that translation.

In addition to the canon articles we will need the following supporting articles:

  • Interpretation
    • article for each book - collects together interpretations from a variety of interpretive traditions.
    • article on each interpretive method, with links to examples found in each of the book articles.
    • article discussing history of interpretation - placing each method in the context of history and community
  • Translation
    • list of all translations grouped by language - THIS EXISTS!
    • article for each translation (many exist)
  • Text
    • Biblical manuscripts - wikified list of each manuscript used in the construction of at least one Biblical editions.
    • article for each manuscript.
    • article discussing the history and methodology of textual criticism


Leaving things as is. That is the one thing I feel we can not do. The main thing I take away from Luqmanskye's proposal to turn Bible into a disambig page is that Bible as it stands does a lousy job of communicating the common questions studied and answered by those reading the bible. If we want people to understand why bible=disambig page is a bad idea, the article has to make it clear. A consensus on the discussion page is not enough.

The current article's structure also ignores the enormous importance of the bible to secular western and Islamic civilization. We need to be mindful of the issues raised by David and User:jonathan. As much as I'd like to say the religious traditions "own" the bible, I cannot. Its influence on literature, history, politics, and more is too great. David may have decided this is the wrong forum for his views, but we cannot ignore the issues he raised. An article on "bible" needs to consider all the things associated with the bible, not just the ones that we religious folk find interesting. That is the idea behind WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. I agree with Shirahadasha that we have to be very careful not to give into academic=dry and boring or secular=anti-religious. On the other hand, we can't go the other way and ignore that there are non-Jewish, non-Christian voices and readers who care about the bible and have something notable to say about it.

Furthermore failure to rewrite this article and finish what we started does everyone involved in this discussion a disservice. We've worked long and hard together to identify problems and build trust. Now it is time to use this work to move forward and finish what we've started.

In a topic so large as "Bible", the main article needs to function as a road map that (a) transitions people from popular notions to an awareness of the full field of study (User:Shirahadasha, User:Egfrank, User:Alastair Haines) (b) names the key questions that serious readers of the bible ask (User:Egfrank, User:Alastair Haines) (c) whets the appetite and excites people about getting answers to those key questions (User:Shirahadasha, User:Egfrank, User:Alastair Haines) and (d) provides links to sub-articles that cover the range of answers in detail User:Slrubenstein, User:Luqmanskye).

If we feel the proposed outline meets those goals, I recommend we shift our discussion to a workable action plan. If not, we need to name and work through the outstanding issues. And we need to do it ASAP - this is an amazing group of people who have collected around this article. I would really hate to see us lose momentum. Egfrank 12:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing items[edit]

Looking over the proposed outline and User:Blanchardb's review of Bible in other languages, there seem to be some missing items:

  • authorship theories/beliefs
  • biblical archeology
  • liturgical use of the bible

Egfrank 16:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection[edit]

Prior to the full protection, this article had been long-term s-protected as it is a heavy vandalism target. When auto-expiring protection expires, everything expires and thus the s-protection expired too. Based on the level of vandalism since the expiration of the full protection, I have readded the indefinite semi-protection. I know that a lot of people don't like long-term semi-protection - and I'm not really trying to take a position on that one way or the other - I'm just restoring what was already there. If someone has a compelling reason to do something different, I'm not going to yell too loudly. --B 22:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certain I'm not familiar with all the issues, but I'm the type to err on the side of liberty. I would argue that although high risk for vandalism, this is also a highly maintained page, i.e. there are many projects that class the article as TOP priority. Hence, it is likely watched by many, and cared about sufficiently that "experiments" will be reverted promptly and this work will be spread across enough people to present no undue burden. I'm not personally fussed, of course, as I don't seem to be locked out myself. Alastair Haines 01:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article restructuring[edit]

I was thinking it might make sense to use the Request for comments process to request additional comments. OK? Best, --Shirahadasha 04:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agreed! Egfrank 05:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality in religious articles[edit]

I've been thinking a bit about the question of adopting the NPOV in religious articles. I'm not sure it's any different to political articles, for example, but then again, I'm not sure it's exactly the same. Extending the example, official representatives of political parties are constrained in what they are allowed to make public with regard to the party. They are reliable sources of information the party officially acknowledges, but can be dubious sources regarding other matters. In some matters they are the only reliable source, say of the official party line. However, they are not free critics of their party, and so are inappropriate sources for such comment. On the other hand, critics of a party can be poor sources for the official position of that party, because it is not always in their interests to represent what they criticize in terms that would be officially sanctioned by the party they criticize.

But here is where there is a difference when it comes to religious articles. In the political context, there are usually independent commentators, who are perfectly happy to explain the content of an official party position, without implying support for it. They are also happy to freely criticize. With religious articles, I'm not so sure independent commentary is so easily found. I think the reason comes down to one main factor, that I'd call the if-you-are-not-with-us-you-are-against-us (IYANWUYAAU for short;) argument. It is a claim that neutrality is impossible.

Now I think there is some truth in this insight. Because the Bible, under almost any interpretation, makes universal claims, like "God caused everything", "adultery is always wrong" and so on, if someone reads it carefully enough to form an opinion about it, they are forming an opinion about these claims. From an orthodox Jewish or conservative Christian point of view, any position that claims neutrality with regard to the Bible either hasn't read it, or isn't being honest. (Perhaps the fact that I'm a conservative Christian helps me understand this point of view;)

Now I ask myself why it is that I believe that neutral point of view on the Bible is possible, without compromising faith, nor requiring it. I think the answer to that lies in treating the Bible almost like any other source and allowing a reader to form an opinion about it. The article is primarily about the Bible, not about people's opinions about the Bible. In fact, there's probably something wrong if we don't have a PLOT SPOILER tag somewhere. Do people disagree so much and about every single thing related to the Bible that a reader can't be trusted to make a judgement without expert guidance? Any commentary on the Bible introduces the potential for POV, rather than removing it. But let's not let that stop us utilizing commentators who summarize the Bible clearly (minus the sermon bit that says, "so you should ..."). We need to make editorial judgements together about which controversial bits need leaving out (creation v evolution ... let's delegate that one;) and which need inclusion (eternal covenant at Sinai perhaps;). Faithful summary of the best text should be our goal, and we have thousands of superb commentators to guide us as needed. Rashi, Augustine and Calvin agree about more than many might expect.

Here's a thought I have. We need some hard facts about canon, manuscripts and so on. But we need narrative. The Torah has plenty of it. It's the story of the Jewish people and their God, and they are still around today to tell us that story. They probably know it best and can tell it most accurately and sympathetically. An additional advantage of this would be that I can sit back and comment on the work of others rather than doing any myself. ;) Alastair Haines 14:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One analogy I sometimes use, which helps explain the difference in outlook in somewhat less contentious terms, is the to contrast the way academic historians and lawyers view a document like the U.S. constitution. Historians view the constitution largely to help them form a picture the ideas and culture of the late 18th century. Lawyers, on the other hand, have to view the document as a source of authority and moreover, through a lens of later interpretations which may be rooted in later intellectual and cultural developments. We don't normally think of lawyers as a narrow-minded lot. We take government declarations that historical documents are sources of present-life authority uncritically and don't begrudge lawyers or think them strange for believing this or for having a different perspective on these documents because they do. The fact that lawyers look at the past for the purpose of constructing an argument about the present definitely affects their view of the past and the kinds of theories about the past they are likely to entertain. I think one difference between a classical religious outlook and an academic outlook has similar elements. The outlooks are, in some ways, about different subjects. Yet no-one would think of lawyers, the constitution's "users", so to speak, as being non-experts or unreliable. Moreover, historians need to come up with novel theories to get tenure whereas lawyers merely need to persuade to win a case, so the types of theories historians are likely to entertain are not necessarily entirely free of bias either. Best, --Shirahadasha 15:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of the reason I like the postmodern perspective so much is that it embraces the idea that there is no such thing as true neutrality. We always read, write, edit, reflect, and act from a point of view. The most we can ever do is try to fit the different viewpoints into a shared structure or context. However, even that needs constant readjusting because as views are elaborated or new POV added to the mix, the old structures begin to seem flimsy, incomplete, or biased. Egfrank 16:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking of what you have written, Alastair, and then rereading what I wrote above about Tzedakah, I think you hit the nail on the head about it being impossible to read the bible neutrally. Even if one uses methods that are "academic" or "neutral", the methods raise questions which are so profound that there is no neutral answer possible. When you say, we need narrative, what exactly did you have in mind? Egfrank 16:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic comments! Shir, your example is much clearer than mine, and I like it. Egfrank, the two of you are so smart it's scary! I think I have come to believe the Bible was designed to stimulate communal interpretation. As you say, it raises profound questions, and offers elliptical clues to resolving issues when examined closely. Dare I suggest proto-discovery-life-long-learning-in-community and blatantly read modern ideas into an ancient text. Who said "there is nothing new under the sun"?
But to answer your question, I think we need something like your study of tsedekah above. We need to give readers a taste of Abraham the "wandering Jew", whose son became Vizier of Egypt. They need an impression of waiting and waiting for promises to be fulfilled. The "Dark Ages" between Joseph and Moses. Slavery! Forty years wandering again. Hmmm, then political problem bit. (Lucky we have limited space.) Fast forward to Judges. Triumph and tragedy, tricky left handers, anti-heroes and heroes who had God's spirit, riddles, and a taste for prostitutes! Chaos. "No king and each did as he saw fit." David the outlaw King. Adultery and murder (again).
We need to give people a synopsis, that gives substance to any debates we report. Otherwise the debates seem dry. Suppose (and I don't recommend it) we addressed supersessionism. "So what!" some would say, that's a fancy name for "we disagree." But if people know the story, then they can say, "Hang on! Do Christians say God did all that for nothing! Dumped Israel for a new floozy!" (I must stop being so colourful.)
Somewhere at Wiki, this article or another, we should have a synopsis of the Bible. We could do it separately at Tanakh and Apocrypha and New Testament, or we could share precious space here. Individual books do not give an impression of how the canons hold together. Canon is fundamental to Bible. Why? It's not because people care to get the numbers right, it's because people care about the story. How does it end? Are we still waiting? What happened between Nehemiah and John the Baptist (Christian question -- only Catholics have canonical answer). Some will say, "Christians and Jews are very similar, they both believe in waiting, but the Jews have been doing it longer!" ;)
Telling the story raises the question of historicity. We need to establish enough credibility via manuscripts and other things for people to be bothered reading the story or taking it semi seriously, in the first place. But most historicity questions can probably be treated book by book. Was Job a real man? Jonah in a whale! I think you made this point well in tsedekah. Address issues only as they arise for the reader.
Well, that's my idea of narrative, it only covers the first half of the Tanakh (and not all of that). It is biased by the Septuagint ordering of the books. But that's an ancient and legitimate presentation of the canonical books (plus some bonus books that were thrown in with the subscription). We do need to avoid this though. I can see many other problems. I'll keep quiet if no-one likes the idea. Alastair Haines 17:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I checked Bhagavad Gita and it contains the sort of thing I'm trying to describe. Alastair Haines 00:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am responding to the opening comment in this section. Alistair, I think you misunderstand our NPOV policy. Neutral point of view does not mean no point of view. It means clearly identifying all motable and verifiable views. You are creating a complication where none exists. The real danger I think you should be concerned with is NOR (no original research) - editors should not promote their own views as such in articles. Now, with regard to the war on iraq, it does not matter whether I believe that the war was justifiable because SH had WMD, or justifiable because SH was a dictator, or unjustifiable. What is important is that I know that there are people out thee who hold at least these three views and i can find articles in newspapers, magazines, and journals as sources for providing accurate, well-contextualized accounts of these views. Likewise, regardless of my personal beliefs, I know that some people believe Isaiah was a prophet of God who prophesized the coming of Jesus; there are people who believe he was the prophet of God who did not prophesize the coming of Jesus; there are people who believe he was a divinely inspired poet but not a literal mouthpiece for God, and there are people who do not believe in God and think he was just a poet working in the idiom of his time, and there are people who think he was a charlatan, and people who think he never existed. I am sure I can provide a faith account of each of these views in an article on Isaiah, regardless of my own beliefs. It is called "research" and anyone who went to a good high school learned how to do it (represent accurately viws other than their own, based on books and articles one has read) by the tenth grade. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alistair, you write, "But we need narrative. The Torah has plenty of it. It's the story of the Jewish people and their God, and they are still around today to tell us that story. They probably know it best and can tell it most accurately and sympathetically." I disagree. Anyone can come up with a precis of the Torah but i do not think that is what is called for in this article or an article on the Torah. What is called for is an account of the major Jewish views (e.g. Rashi and other commentators), as well as contemporary views. Anyone regardless of religion can read Alter and Kermodes Literary Guide to the Bible to represent one scholarly view of the bible (including narrative). And the history and religion f Israel belong in another article, not here, and again, anyone regardless of race or religion can read Bright's A History of israel or Noth's The History of Israel as two fine sources for ageneral narrative. Wikipedia is not based on the idea that only Jews can accurately represent the Jewish point of view. What is important is NOT the identity of an editor but their knowledge of the sources. i admit, an Orthodox Jew is more likely to know the Mikraot Gedolot and be able to provide a good account of the Rabbinic view of the Bible. But what is important is not that s/he is Jewish or orthodox, but rather has done good research and knows the sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. We certainly don't disagree about NPOV or OR. Where I think we do disagree is whether this article is about critical reflection on the Bible or about the Bible itself. Take the US constitution example. I want to know its history, I want a precis, and I want to hear about dissent and defence.
Take the historicity of the Exodus example you raise. Several of us here have probably written substantial essays on the various views people hold on such questions. But think from a Wiki reader's perspective. If we haven't even told them that the Bible speaks of an Exodus as if it actually occured, and how that event fits into the narrative of the rest of the Tanakh, they can't really evaluate the different POVs we may present.
I think we need a very tame Sabbath School (shul?, we say Sunday School) presentation of the Bible narrative, before we go to Bright and Noth et al. I think we need Rashi before we need the others too. That's historical, and logical. Don't get me wrong, I want every opinion covered somewhere at Wiki. This is the parent article. We need to start at the top and work down in producing articles, which means starting at the bottom and working up with regards to abstraction regarding the text. At least that's what I'm feeling at the moment.
PS Is kol tuv, like it's all good in Israeli, but without being quite so colloquial? Is it standard modern Hebrew? Is there a Yiddish equivalent? Alastair Haines 13:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kol tuv is a colloquial closing in modern Hebrew. Literally it means "May all be well". Functionally, I suppose it means the same as "Best", "All the best", "Cheers", "Regards" or any other closing statement used in formal and semi-formal situtations. Egfrank 15:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PPS The thing I like about Egfranks' focus on text and canon and interpretation is that these things are abstract to name, but are very concrete in practice. They are about looking at text and letting it speak for itself. They are about giving readers the tools to evaluate commentators. They are very different to speculations aimed at deconstructing biblical orthodoxy by erudite pontification. Rather they democratize Bible reading making traditional commentators more amenable to lay scrutiny, largely by copying what they did well! </passionate defence of recent trends in scholarship> Alastair Haines 13:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - far be it for me to stand in the way of any progress! Just one caveat: i trulu appreciate the motive and intent behind "letting the text speak for itself," but that is what Fundamentalists claim they are doing when they are really interpreting the text. I am for this reason alone very wary of any claims of letting any text speak for itself. I don't know if it was Phyllis Tribble or somone else who noted that any act of reading is an act of interpretation but I find that a valid enough claim that anyone who proposes to do one without the other better be reaaaallllly careful. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're chasing one another in circles agreeing with one another! Yes, I agree there's always interpretation in reading. (A kind of non-neutrality.) When reading a red stop sign, however, most of us come up with the same interpretation, or the police soon teach us what interpretation is expected. Yes, there are fundamentalists who say the right thing and can't see how they fall short of it themselves. There are radical liberals who claim any interpretation is valid, but then argue against traditional views. Both groups can end up being police, and getting it wrong. Police can be good, but they can make mistakes.
No fundamentalist Christian, by the way, can ever consistently claim all texts only ever have one interpretation, because the New Testament claims, in a number of places, that the Tanakh can be rightly interpreted in more than one way, one of which is a Christian one. But that's just my reading! ;) I won't go on.
Thanks for your words, I love 'em. "No standing in the way of progress, ... but be careful!!!" LoL, fair enough. But this isn't about me, it's about us, and we're all here to jump on one-another if we slip into traditional (or modern) assumptions. :) Alastair Haines 20:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apocrypha[edit]

One "citation needed" tag asks that we provide a citation to show that the Acts of Peter is considered apocryphal. The language and context used in the article is such that "apocryphal", there, means that it is not included in the Canon, something just about any idiot can see by himself without need for a citation. Maybe it would be a good idea to expand the section, or write a new article altogether, to point out that "apocryphal" can mean either "non canonical" or "of dubious authenticity". That would take care of the need for a citation for this particular point.

I know that whoever wrote this factoid, and whoever put up the citation needed tag, both meant "dubious authenticity", but, if that's the case, this factoid does not belong in the section about the Canon, regardless of its veracity.

I intend to expand said section in the next few days to explain the process by which individual books were declared canonical (with full citations), and to me the fact about the "Acts of Peter" is just irrelevant. --Blanchardb 05:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to wait a bit - there is a consensus that this article needs to be significantly restructured and we are currently working though some issues about perspective. I suspect details like this will probably be moved into sub-articles. You are welcome (actually encouraged) to join in any of the discussion topics above (the restructuring work begins #Refining article with a disambiguation page for the various bibles here. I'd make use of the history page to follow the discussion because more than one section is currently active. Best, Egfrank 11:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis[edit]

I'm googling "synopsis" and "bible" to try to find something we could all criticise, but which we could probably "wikify" or "encyclopediarize". Wikification is a particularly good way to think about it, because we could link to many, many internal articles that already exist. This synopsis assumes Moses wrote the Torah (POV), I didn't get to any Christian assumptions, but I bet they are there (POVx2), the name OT (POVx3) for a start. I don't like it's style, "this book" and "is found here" are repeated many times, however, the "is found here" marks a range of pericopes that are of general interest, and the sort of thing people could use. List of Bible topics and list of Bible people might exist, but say I wanted to find Melchizedek, didn't remember the name, but knew he was in Genesis, a wikified synopsis could be very helpful. Perhaps all we need is Synopsis of the Bible and we can point to it from this article. I'm going pretty low-brow here, but the Bible is so written about and so deep, I think we need to agree to some "building blocks" of presentation. Egfranks framework does a lot of that work, imo. I guess I'm just thinking synopsis fits after text and canon, and before interpretation and social influence. Anyway, I'll report back if I find anything more impressive than the link I've offered above.

Leaving aside the synopsis idea though. I'd love to hear people's opinions on some other issues: What kind of readers do we think will come to the page? What will they be looking for? What will they already know? What are the biggest controversies about the Bible in the secular mindset? Alastair Haines 16:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"biblical" or "Biblical"?[edit]

Biblical or biblical? Should Wikipedia adopt a style guideline favoring one over the other when used as an adjective referring to the Bible (e.g., Biblical scholar, biblical exegesis, Biblical foundation, biblical support, etc.)?

Please comment on the RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible#RFC: "biblical" or "Biblical". Thanks — DIEGO talk 18:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganization — what's done in other Wiki languages[edit]

French[edit]

Here, I have translated the table of contents of the article Bible in the French Wikipedia. It might help us decide whether we're on the right track in our own reorganization, though I see that some of these points are covered in other articles, and I regard them as irrelevant for the sake of a main article.

Contents [hide]

  • 1 Presentation
    • 1.1 A collection of Holy Scriptures
    • 1.2 The most distributed book in the World
  • 2 Structure of the texts
    • 2.1 Biblical canon
    • 2.2 Chapters and verses
  • 3 The Hebrew Bible
  • 4 The Septuagint
    • 4.1 Deuterocanonicals (apocryphs for protestants)
  • 5 The New Testament
  • 6 Biblical Exegesis
    • 6.1 Hebrew Bible and Old Testament
    • 6.2 New Testament
  • 7 Bible readings
    • 7.1 Judaïsm
    • 7.2 Christianity
      • 7.2.1 Roman Catholicism
      • 7.2.2 Protestantism (Lutheran-reformed)
      • 7.2.3 Protestantism (Evangelical)
      • 7.2.4 Mormonism
      • 7.2.5 Jéhovah's Witnesses
      • 7.2.6 Ecuménism
  • 8 Archaeological and historical research
    • 8.1 Nomadist theory
  • 9 French editions of the Bible
  • 10 Notes and references
  • 11 Bibliography
  • 12 Related articles
  • 13 Bible versions available online
    • 13.1 Jewish
    • 13.2 Roman Catholic
    • 13.3 Protestant
    • 13.4 Jehovah's Witnesses
    • 13.5 Ecumenical

B-class in French --Blanchardb 19:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

German[edit]

Here's the German:

Inhaltsverzeichnis [Verbergen]

  • 1 The words "Bible" and "Holy Scripture"
  • 2 The Jewish Bible
    • 2.1 Torah
    • 2.2 Prophets
    • 2.3 Writings
  • 3 The Chritian Bible
    • 3.1 Old Testament (OT)
    • 3.2 New Testament (NT)
    • 3.3 Relationship between the Old and New Testament
  • 4 History of the text
    • 4.1 Oldest manuscripts
    • 4.2 Canonization
    • 4.3 Translation
  • 5 Biblical criticism — facts or myths
  • 6 The Bible in Islam
  • 7 Spreading of the Bible
  • 8 Image Bible
  • 9 Collections and museums
  • 10 See also
  • 11 References
  • 12 Literature
  • 13 Web links
    • 13.1 General
    • 13.2 Translations
    • 13.3 Image Bibles (Bilderbibel)
    • 13.4 Interpretations & Commentaries
    • 13.5 Literary associations
    • 13.6 Music

Not rated in German --Blanchardb 19:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish[edit]

The Spanish version is, quite frankly, stub-class, but it does have a chapter about consevation and integrity of the text. --Blanchardb 19:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A good example at English Wiki[edit]

Thanks for these examples Blanchardb. I've also discovered a Wiki entry — Cain and Abel that looks good to me. Neutrally providing several interpretations. Lots of information for the reader, plenty of food for thought. But that's just an example of how synopsis can be done well with a short section. Alastair Haines 01:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review of bible coverage[edit]

I'm going to try to do a survey of the bible articles to see what is and is not missing from the books. For anyone that wants to help me, I'll put it at Talk:Bible/Article survey. If this doesn't get still born we may want to move this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible. Egfrank 12:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's a lot of work, thanks for gathering that Egfrank. There are a lot of excellent articles in that collection too. I am going to hang in with this work group (and maybe do some recruiting;). I know there are other editors, notably Andrew c, who have been doing work to bring cohesion to Wiki articles in this area. Alastair Haines 04:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah! You are a great contributor! Egfrank 11:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bible project vs. Bible article[edit]

I'm wondering whether you think this discussion should continue here or on the bible project? It seems that the Bible article is really a set of interrelated articles and not just one article. Because the project and the article are so closely related I'm concerned about one hand not knowing the other. Egfrank 11:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've been thinking the same thing, but I think we've needed discussion here to work out a united proposal to take to the project page. Go ahead and propose something, I'll second you. I suspect any disagreements I might have would be minor and not worth discussing until others were on board anyway. The only concern I'd have is too many Christians might spoil the broth! ;) But seriously, with time, I'm learning Wiki has many mature editors who know how to present information from the NPOV. Let's do it! Poke me at my user page if I'm slow in seconding. :)
It'd be nice if Slrub and Shir keep a watchful eye on progress too. Hint, hint. ;) Alastair Haines 14:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apropos Jonathan Alter just came out with a new English translation of Psalms (italicizes as in "book of"). Recently - I think this month - The New Yorker (italicized as in, name of journal/magazine) came out with a review of the translation and it shouldn't be too hard for you guys to google it or otherwise find it. I highly recommend it, based on what i know of your interests as well as this discussion. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this might be the article you read — 'Desert Storm: Understanding the capricious God of the Psalms' by James Wood. Sounds fascinating, I love Robert Alter's work. While I'd be the last person to suggest the psalms don't have application to Christianity, I flinch at the way my friends and I find it so easy to start with a Christian framework in reading them, and that's just not right.
Good for James Wood, teasing on the border of offending Christians by publishing Alter's idea, offending Jews by calling the God of the psalms capricious, and offending Americans in general by using "Desert Storm" as a witty phrase. I think he gets away with it well. Serious issues all, helped by mature reflection rather than reflex reactions.
You can be sure I'll be reading this book. :) Alastair Haines 23:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is indeed the review I meant! An article on "Bible" should include references to major new translations including Alter's and Fox's. An article on "Biblical scholarship" or "Interpretations of the Bible" should have one section on theories of interpretation, as well as sections on different hermeneutic approaches and theories of authorship and canonization. PS as a follower of AJ Heschel I am not even close to offended by someone calling my God capricious. I don't think he ever is, but i can see how outsiders to our relationship might misunderstand/misperceive the situation. We Jews aren't perfect, either. Thankfully, He is full of grace and compassion, as well. I do not believe in a "care-bear" God. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll second that - life is way to complicated for for a "care-bear God" (great term BTW) Egfrank 03:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit caught up with some work obligations and an ongoing debate in the Wikipedia Judaism project over the legitimacy of the term "progressive judaism". But I hope to have a proposal sent over to the Bible project in the next day or two. Egfrank 03:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick-failed "good article" nomination[edit]

Per the Good Article quick-fail criteria, any article with cleanup banners and multiple {{fact}} tags, such as this one, must be failed forthwith and without an in-depth review. Once the issues brought up by these templates have been addressed, the article may be renominated. If you feel this decision was in error, you may seek a reassessment. Thank you for your work so far, VanTucky Talk 23:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bible version in External links[edit]

The tag in the external links rightfully notes that this section should be fixed, and I wondered if anyone objected to a Bible search engine like this one to scale down the sheer number of links in this section. Biblegateway has 22 versions of the Bible in English like KJV,RSV, NIT, etc.(all the cool ones, plus some nerdy ones *kidding*). And it has Bibles in 45 different languages including Hebrew, French, Italian, Spanish, etc.

I would also like to include this Strong's Concordance. These two links I believe could scale back this exceedingly large compilation of links down to something reasonable. Surely they don't negate the need for all of them found therein, but does cover the gist of them. Can we get an informal consensus about this? Jeff 18:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. No need to have 200 links that basically say the same thing. Actually, I will link to Strong's concordance right away. If anyone feels it is not right, it can always be removed. --Blanchardb 13:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining cleanup tags[edit]

  • We have a one-year-old {{refimprove}} tag for the entire Hebrew Bible translations and editions section. Not one reference whatsoever in that section.
  • The following statements have been tagged with {{fact}}
    • While there are no complete surviving manuscripts of the Hebrew texts on which the Septuagint was based, many scholars believe that they represent a different textual tradition ("Vorlage") from the one that became the basis for the Masoretic texts. (Hebrew Bible translations and editions)
    • With the benefit of hindsight it can be said that this process effectively set the New Testament canon, although there are examples of other canonical lists in use after this time. A definitive list did not come from an Ecumenical Council until the Council of Trent (1545–63). (Canonization of the Old Testament and New Testament)
    • It should also be noted, that Catholics and Protestants both describe certain other books, such as the ‘’Acts of Peter’’, as apocryphal. (Canonization of the Old Testament and New Testament)
    • Canonicity, which involves the discernment of which texts are divinely inspired, is distinct from questions of human authorship and the formation of the books of the Bible. (Canonization of the Old Testament and New Testament)
    • The Church also has a "broader canon" that includes more books. (Ethiopian Orthodox canon)
    • In scholarly writing, ancient translations are frequently referred to as "versions," with the term "translation" being reserved for medieval or modern translations. (Bible versions and translations)
    • The critical analysis of authorship now encompasses every book of the Bible. Every book in turn has been hypothesized to bear traces of multiple authorship, even the book of Obadiah (Modern developments)

Whenever one of those gets fixed (or the statement it is attached to is deleted), its mention here should be struck off like this. If I missed any, please add it to the list. --Blanchardb 13:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that I personally do not dispute any of the tagged statements. All we need is sources to cite, that's all. --Blanchardb 16:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for a clearer introduction[edit]

I would say that the Bible consists of the Hebrew bible - the Tanakh - that was fixed in (date) by the men of the Great Assembly at the time of the Second Temple. The Christian Bible is the same - with the addition of the New Testament - and then go on to say how that originated and was fixed. Then there were translations of the Hebrew Bible into the Septuagint - a Greek bible from the Hebrew that was available to Paul, and that was translated into Latin - the Roman Vulgate. Instead of the present description. RPSM 16:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your description is a great summary of the canon, though I would note that scholars disagree on the date when the Tanakh closed - some placing it as late as the 2nd century CE.
I'm so glad for your interest. I and others agree that the current intro (and much of the rest of the article) needs some significant reorganization - see the above debates. As you'll see when you read above, there are a *lot* of things that need to be fixed and a lot of work to do to fix them. A proposal is in process, but new input is most welcome. In fact, highly desirable.
One issue raised in the discussion was the need to (a) use this article as an overview of all things bible (b) capture what makes the bible exciting and we bounced around the idea of including a synopsis.
One concern I have with the intro above is that it reduces the bible to a list of books and how they came about when really for many it is the content that really matters and defines it. I'm wondering now if a synopsis really should be the introduction? If we did that, the intro might look something like this (see next section).
I wonder what you think of that idea? Egfrank 22:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Draft of proposal to bible project[edit]

My apologies that its taken me a while to get around to this. As I reviewed the material above, I've come up with a proposal that is slightly different than the original one. Before I flesh it out and propose it, I'd like some feedback to see if I indeed covered the issues raised:

  1. Intro - see section above - (User:Shirahadasha, User:Alastair Haines would the intro below meet the concerns expressed above about making sure that the bible article is actually about the bible and not just the study of the bible?)
    The Bible is a collection of stories, poems, wisdom literature, speeches, dialogs, prophecy and history that work together to describe the relationship between God (El, I am that I am, YHWH) and humankind. Beginning with the story of creation the Bible portrays God as both an influence and an actor in history. The stories and writings traditionally included in the Bible capture a range of human interactions with God. In some God is silent and no one even talks to God (Ester,Ruth, Song of Songs, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes). In others humankind talks to God but not the other way around (Psalms). In some only God speaks and human beings are merely God's mouthpiece in history(Micah, Amos, Obediah). In some there is a dialog between human beings and God with each reacting to the other (Pentatuch, Isaiah, Jonah, the Gospels, Acts). The rich range of literary styles and interactions has drawn the interest of many different readers and thinkers from many different religions and even from those who do not believe in God at all.

    Those who study the bible ask one of seven kinds of questions:
    • readers: who reads the bible and why? how do they answer the remaining six questions?
    • canon: what books are included in the bible? why? by whom?
    • text: what is the real text of each book? how do we decide that? is there a real text?
    • interpretation: what is the meaning of the text? how to we confirm it?
    • use: how is the bible used by the various reader communities?
    • impact: how has the bible affected its readers? the community around those readers? art? literature? politics? society?
    • truth: is the bible "true"? how do we know it? how do we disprove it?
  2. Etymology - see #A not-so-modest proposal
  3. Reader communities
    • list of reader communities
    • plus possibly a modified version of the chart [[3]] to help people navigate through all the articles. Two important modifications are needed: (a) add non-religious reader groups (b) simplify cell contents (may require clean-up/refactoring of article content)
  4. Canon - synoposis of main article, maybe using RPSM description in the section above (with small fix re: disputes in dating close of Jewish canon)
  5. Text - synopsis of main article(s)
  6. Interpretation - synopsis of main article(s)
  7. Impact - synopsis of main article(s) - merges sections 5,6,7 in #A not-so-modest proposal (thanks - User:Blanchardb)
  8. Truth - synoposis of main article(s) - main article should describe notable arguments to prove/disprove the truth of the bible, e.g. philosophical arguments, archeology. (thanks - User:Blanchardb - your multi-lingual view helped point out that things like archeology were missing)

Thanks in advance for feedback, Egfrank 22:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of changes[edit]

  1. Added "is there a real text?" to set of "text" questions - see comment User:Jheald below - Egfrank 20:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Added "God (El, I am that I am, YHWH)" - see comment User:Fcsuper below - Egfrank 20:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback[edit]

Those questions are excellent. I think they are exactly the sort of questions people have, and would love an encyclopedia to answer. Archaeology is a particularly good source, because it is not religious. The same goes for outlining the major impact the Bible and/or Judaeo-Christian interpretation of it have had on Western culture.

Another important angle, logically prior to the influence-on-Western-culture point, is understanding how the Bible works as a source document for each of the Jewish and Christian traditions. This includes establishing canon, text and interpretation.

Archaeology and/or text criticism also seems to me to be logically prior to tradition. The Bible itself is a tradition. I think we need to be really clear about where there are gaps in knowledge, and where there are inconsistancies, but also equally clear about the vast evidence that does exist.

It would probably be good to address the issue of divine inspiration early in the article, because it is tied up with canon. Yes, some argue canon on the basis of faithfulness to tradition, and are agnostic or even atheist about it. This needs to be stated without bias. Wiki needs to adopt the agnostic position. Atheism claims to know that God doesn't exist, just as theism claims he (or she or they) does. Agnostic simply says "I don't know, this is what the two sides say ..."

If we get this right nice and early, readers will feel comfortable that the article is not a Jewish or Christian apologetic. There are many notable academics who are atheist but take the Bible seriously, likewise there are academics associated with J and C communities who are committed to these communities as communities and agnostic or even atheist in their personal views. Generally speaking all these scholars communicate fairly easily about specific questions, many questions simply do not depend on the "does God exist" question.

We don't need to say all the things I'm noting here, they will be implicit in the questions we ask and how we answer them. I really like your questions Egfrank. I think you've tied a lot of threads from this topic together, and presented a clear way forward. The questions link the discussion to action.

Finally, I agree, doing nothing is an option, but not the best one. Your proposals for change are clearly improvements, as demonstrated by questions the current article does not address, but would be natural questions in the minds of readers typing Bible into their Wiki search engine. Alastair Haines 02:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hi! I'm afraid that due to events IRL I can only be on-project a few minutes a day this week to make a few comments and revert a little vandalism. I probably won't be able to give this very interesting proposal the attention it deserves until the weekend. Best, --Shirahadasha 06:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I would say the introduction itself seems far too poetic to be encyclopedic. There are a lot of phrases and word choices in it that will invite vandalism and long endless arguments from every corner. The current introduction is very technical, and I personally feel it is arbitrary in what it chooses to talk about. But even getting to that point was a serious pain, as earlier versions where simply horrendous and often serious POV, but still difficult to cut. We should take this one step at a time. Let's discuss what sections should remain in and be added to the article or project. Its is those sections that will determine the make-up of the introduction. An introduction should be a brief overview of the topic. The article(s) should be factual statements covering points of interest. What you are proposing is more of an essay than a factual article. --Fcsuper 03:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fcsuper, thanks for your input. This proposal is the end result of an extensive discussion carried out over the last month about contents and purpose of this article (much along the lines that you suggest), initiated when a user tried to convert the page into a disambiguation page. Your input on the various issues raised in that discussion would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks for the reminder of the contentiousness Given your observation about debates, it would seem wise to be especially diligent in footnoting each statement in the article (something that is currently not done). A consistent practice of using cited material would make disputes harder to initiate, and raise debate to an academic level that would at least have a chance of being enjoyable and informative. Or failing that give us firm ground to make a complaint of disruptive editing (e.g. eliminating cited material without discussion or explanation).
Can you clarify what you mean by "factual statements"? The summary, though it may seem poetic can be justified using citations from academic sources, particularly from literature on the "bible as literature". The same goes for each of the key questions: there are multiple books and in some cases entire academic disciplines devoted to each of those questions. Egfrank 11:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Egfrank, but I'd like to second User:Fcsuper's concerns. These are good questions for a talk-page, to make sure the article is appropriately scoped; but I don't think they're a good introduction for an article. The second paragraph is open to accusations of WP:OR (who decided these were the questions?), the first to WP:SYN. And I particularly second User:Fcsuper that it's far too interpretative for a WP:LEAD. You might just about have got away with it as the first paragraph below the fold. But the lead really does need to be pitched in a much colder "Just the facts, ma'am" kind of way, to establish that the tone is that of a factual report, not an original essay. In those terms, the present lead works better.
Regarding the suggested questions -- "what is the real text of the book" is quite loaded in that it assumes there was a real text of the book. Others might want to ask, how did the text change and evolve? what is believed about how it was assembled? etc. These don't seem to fit naturally under your normative headings; but do fit naturally under a looser less normative umbrella like "textual criticism". The looser, less prescriptive structure is more amenable to inclusion of different material and more POVs; whereas starting out with a closed list of questions runs the risk of being exclusionary, and excluding particular angles on the material. So I'm not comfortable with your proposal. Jheald 12:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All good points Jheald - but they would also apply to the current article which deals with an even more limited set of questions and just three POVs (trad J, trad C,evolutionary).
This proposal is intended to provide a meta structure that will allow the bible to function as an overview article that includes and directs the reader to articles covering the full range of questions and the answers provided by each POV (religious and non-religious). By providing a framework like this we also address the reason why this article isn't just a diambig page pointing to the three POVs.
If you have a better framework to suggest, go for it. This is just a proposal. A survey of current wikipedia bible articles is available at Talk:Bible/Article_survey. Feel free to copy, edit, or extend it. The above discussion may also be helpful - Blanchard has provided a list of topics covered by Bible in other languages. Shirahadasha has raised a number of issues to which those of us with academic understandings of the bible need to be sensitive.
There was and is no intent to close the list of questions. If there are topics missing, they should most definitely be added:
  • text change and evolve: I think that is already present. the evolutionary view of the bible falls academically into at least three disciplines or methodologies: history of canon (canon) and textual criticism (text) and form criticism (interpretation).
  • are there other things that are missing that you didn't mention?
I certainly would feel better if there were some sort of academic citation for *whatever* framework we choose. Its an issue we have already discussed (see above), but perhaps not hard enough. I worry that the mere effort of creating a WP:NPOV article on the bible may itself be WP:OR - religious folk and academics don't normally sit at the same table to discuss the bible - at least not happily. And even in academia the different academic POV's don't really talk enough. At Hebrew University, textual and form criticism is handled by the bible department, but "bible as literature" is in the Machshevet Israel department. That being said, may be there is a text book or post-modern essay to help us out. Egfrank 13:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS. just noticed the observation about "is there a real text?" - definitely an important question that was omitted - I just added it to the proposed introduction. Egfrank 20:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I think the draft proposed by Egfrank is quite adequate for a main article, however, I would shorten the list of reader communities into a stub with a link to a separate, more detailled article.

As for the chapter about archaeology, of course nothing is ever set in concrete in Wikipedia, so as a starting point I could simply translate the French section on that and let other, more knowledgeable Wikipedians expand it. This is not my area of expertise on the Bible. Wikipedia already has a start-class yet long article on this matter which is part of WikiProject Judaism and could very well be added to WikiProject Christianity. We could link to it, of course. --Blanchardb 23:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please translate the French archaeology section for us!
Other issues posted above remind me about the difficulty of presenting information in the article.
On the one hand, I think that Bible related documents uncovered by archaelogy are a logical place to start describing the Bible. This is objective and verifiable. It is just how we approach articles on the Egyptian Book of the Dead.
However, on the other hand, the Bible is considered authoritative on moral matters by millions in the contemporary world. This makes the Bible article a political topic, not merely an academic, historical one. Some could argue that the article is primarily notable because of the place the Bible has in contemporary thought, and this is the place to start.
Conclusion, both are good places to start. We can't choose one or the other on any objective criterion. Therefore, we can't start the article, therefore we can't have the article, let's just have a disambiguation page.
Hmmm, that's sounds like reductio ad absurdum to me. Both are good places to start, so why not toss a coin if we can't settle it any other way?
I like Egfrank's approach because the Bible is first described in general ways, that are not controversial. This is a realistic approach to definition for this topic I think.
Then the controversial aspects of definition are addressed, the obvious questions one would ask about a corpus of literature like the Bible, but the ones that have notably diverse answers.
All of this is traditional "front matter" for books and articles, not just the Bible.
think there are three main dangers with this article:
  1. editors pushing that "God wrote the Bible, and this is what he says ..."
  2. others pushing that "God does not exist, so the Bible is a blurry mess of dogmatic positions ..."
  3. still others giving up and saying "it's all too hard, let's keep it all to a minimum ..."
Egfrank's suggestion proves there's at least one workable alternative to the above. I'm sure there are many other workable options, and I'll support any of them. :) Alastair Haines 02:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've made good points about the state of this article, though I respectfully disagree with much of your assessment regarding those of us attempting to better it, Alastair.
  • POV: "God wrote the bible..." Yes, this is POV.
  • POV: "God does not exist, so the bible is a blurry mess..." Yes, again, this is POV, though your charactorization of this POV is itself POV.
  • POV: "it's all to hard...": No one has said this at all.
I believe you are unintentionally being perjorative in your assessments of the POV points. It is acceptable that the opening paragraph cover several of the points that Eg touches on, but it needs to do from a neutral POV (see my next comment as just one example). --Fcsuper 17:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I joined the talk here after someone did, in fact, replace this article with a disambig page. Maybe I've misunderstood, but I thought that was a "too-hard basket" decision.
There was nothing unintentional about my characterisations, I intended all the POVs I listed to be caricatures. God said it is a caricature, if some think it an accurate description, it only goes to show how easy it is to pre-position people in narrow boxes.
I would have thought I was one of those trying to improve the article, sorry if you and the "those" who you apparantly represent have not considered my efforts worthy of inclusion. I guess I must just try harder. ;) Alastair Haines 23:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current proposal presumes God is a universal reference. Though Christian, Jewish and Mulsim faiths all supposedly understand this reference (yet each in their own way) and these together form the largest religious bloc on the planet, they are combined only about 50% of the world population (if that). That means half of everyone has NO or limited understanding about the article's reference to God. Bring God up requires expanding of the context to include a discussion about this god. Although this is appropriate under a subheading of the article, it is harder to cover this in the introduction unless it can be done very briefly. Either way, I believe the proposal is excellent writing, it is just not appropriate for this article. --Fcsuper 17:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point! I just looked up the wiki link to God - it appears to emphasize the monotheistic traditions, but is not limited to the Jewish-Christian-Islam perspectives. To clarify the meaning of "God" for this article, I've added the wiki link plus a parenthesized expression of some of names of "God" used within the biblical text. For evenness I've made sure to include three of the terms mentioned in the article God that are also used in the particular biblical books shared in common by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
You mentioned that you have other observations related to NPOV. Could you add them? Egfrank 20:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also would like to hear how the proposed text is POV, because it must be falling into one of my many blind-spots. It looks very neutral as it stands to me. I can come at it being too "poetic" to be encyclopedic, however, I think that's an impression due to the text commenting on literature as literature.
  1. The first edition of Advanced Tiddliwinks was published by the Royal Society in 1934.
  2. Science fantacy is a literary genre that fuses elements of science fiction, with historical fantacy. Typically, the line between technology and magic is not always clear.
I hope the second example is clearly encyclopedic, but also slightly poetic.
The thing is, do we try to approach this article in way 1 or way 2 above.
  1. The first edition of The Bible was published by Moses about 1300 BC. However, this is challenged because ...
  2. The Bible is a collection of ancient texts originally gathered because they were thought to be oracles of God. By oracle ... by God ... is meant ...
I'm deliberately choosing "non starters" not serious proposals to try to illustrate the issue, not answer it.
I'm inclined to think approaching the Bible as believed to have a "divine editor" is simpler and more direct than corresponding claims of prophetic composition. Superior to both, imo, is Eg's approach that, whatever else the Bible may be, it is a collection with a distinctive common focus -- the God of the Abrahamic religions.
To be quite honest, I think this is already a very great concession, since the Bible starts by defining Israel, with no unambiguous reference to Christianity or Islam.
Fcsuper, would you agree that the Egfrank proposal is neutral with regard to religious traditions? Is your claim that it is not neutral with regard to atheistic positions? I propose that NPOV regarding the Bible explicitly requires the agnostic POV, i.e. we do not know if there is or is not a God. Am I wrong about this? Is Egfrank's text clearly atheist? or theist? Where? Alastair Haines 00:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find myself in general agreement with the outline and think these are good topics to include and the proposal is a big improvement over the current article. I think the "intro" needs some work. I would describe what the Bible contains in more neutral language (I would not recommend including separate religious and academic characterizations of its contents in the intro although this is worthwhile later on). "chronology" and "account", for example, are neutral words which are neither "story" nor "history"; I would strive for words which describe without either endorsing as true or connoting non-reality. The list of questions might be better understood as simply to listing topics to address (briefly). I agree actually stating these questions as subheaders would not be a good idea. I suggest a simple set of factual statements as the intro. Finally, I don't think we can address the question of "real text". We can simply note that religious views tend to accept certain texts as canonical, while academic views tend to regard the texts as having multiple variations and having changed over time. I honestly -- and I suppose I am speaking equally as a religious person and as a statistician -- do not understand what an academic searching for a single "real" text would do or even what such an inquiry would mean. As a religious person one puts faith in canonical texts as having "reality"; as a statistician variation is part of nature and one describes the variation and its trends as an inherent part of what is "real". But perhaps other disciplines behave differently. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I believe it would be a mistake for the article to try to explain God or other ancilliary concepts. This is what links are for. Imagine forcing the article on sacrifice fly to explain what baseball is, or the quark article to explain what physics is, on pain of being branded "non-neutral" Best, --Shirahadasha 05:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I concur with you Shir, even to the point of admitting my own approach to canon being basically focused on a final form followed by "statistical" variation. I think I use account quite often, chronology I've neglected, narrative is neutral too. I find it hard not to use story and history, which are more neutral in some commentators than others.
I've started a scripture article, which might end up being suitable for handling the "divine inspiration" issues away from our limited space here, just as the God question, I agree, needs more treatment than we can realistically cover here. Alastair Haines 05:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The list of questions 'was intended as a hint of the range of topics to address associated with, for example, "text" - not a proposal for overly long headings. I like headings to stay short and sweet, so the heading might just simply be "Text" (though there might be better headings than that one.)
As for the sections I think the key concept here is synopsis. There is no way an article could ever hope to address all the answers to such weighty questions in an NPOV manner. The most we can hope for IMHO in each section is (a) clarification/expansion of the questions and sometimes why anybody even asks the question (b) links to the various articles available to answer those questions and (c) maybe some objective summary type observations about the range of answers available - being careful of course to avoid WP:SYN.
Real text: I've seen at least three positions and lots of gradations between them: (a) no real text - only manuscripts and variants - some of which are obvious errors and some maybe not, and some variations for which it is impossible to tell on scientific grounds which is more "authentic" so they should all just be treated equally (b) there is a real text and faith communities have traditions that decide the "best text". These traditions take up where science and statistics leave off. (c) there is an authentic source document(s) sanctioned by tradition - science has nothing to do with it. But whether we summarize positions this way or some other, is something we can deal with later - the main thing is that the section explains why the question exists in the first place - as you have done so well above when you describe the difference between the religious and statistical view. Egfrank 08:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bible/Archive_9&oldid=1136562440"